Time for a new subject
Reynolds at LIBRA.LAW.UTK.EDU
Sun Nov 3 17:12:14 PST 2002
I was going to suggest it fell under art 1 sec.8, cl. 5: "To. . . fix the
standard of weights and measures." But whatever.
I think O'Connor's dissent in South Dakota v. Dole was right, and I'd
like to see that become the law. I think that it's hypocritical to use
the spending power to regulate state drinking ages, etc., while
speaking of federalism. In fact, I wrote an oped on that a while
back, which was widely ignored.
Date sent: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:54:34 -0500
Send reply to: Discussion list for con law professors <CONLAWPROF at LISTSERV.UCLA.EDU>
From: Stephen Bragaw <bragaw at SBC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Time for a new subject
To: CONLAWPROF at LISTSERV.UCLA.EDU
> The federal government has this power through the ability to regulate commerce.
> As the manuscript undoubtedly pointed out, standardization of time in the 19th
> century was a result of the need to have trains run on efficient schedules.
> Just as finding the "right" hour was a product of the need to determine
> longitude, needing to know the right time to the minute was a function of
> smoothing the needs of interstate transportation and commerce.
> A much better question in this vein will be whether the NF types try to bring a
> challenge to SD v. Dole.
> A New Federalism "Buff"
> PS--<tongue in cheek>If support of federalism renders me pejoratively as a
> "buff", does that mean your support of the first amendment can be labeled a
> "fetish"? (the same goes for the minion/lackey dichotomy in the latter post)
> Quoting Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU>:
> > I hope that Marty knows my answer to his question. It is, of course, the
> > first. I have not changed my views on Printz, nor, even more obviously, do
> > I view the federal government as generally (or even frequently)
> > "authoritarian" (in any pejorative sense, though it obviously relies on its
> > authority every time, say, the Supremacy Clause is invoked and pre-emption
> > is found to exist).
> > For Printz and other "new federalism" buffs: I have just read a
> > fascinating manuscript about the history of "standard" time. Do you (i.e.,
> > "P-a-o-n-f-b") believe that the federal government has the power to require
> > states to adopt standard time (let alone daylight time). I.e., if Indiana
> > declared that all of its public agencies (including public airports) would
> > run on "God's time" (i.e., solar time), with suitable variations among
> > cities), would Congress have the power to force them into "standard"
> > time? Or would it be enough to condition airport aid on an "agreement" to
> > adopt standard time?
> > sandy
> > It isAt 03:22 PM 10/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > >OK, Sandy, do you "applaud the Ninth Circuit and the coalition of 'left'
> > >and 'right' in behalf of liberty" because you think the panel was correct
> > >on the First Amendment question (or because you agree with Kozinski that
> > >it's a Printz violation?!), or "simply" because you view the federal
> > >policy as "authoritarian," and it's always a good thing for courts to
> > >invalidate "authoritarian" government conduct? :)
> > >
> > >Marty L. (in my personal capacity; full disclosure: I've worked on the
> > case)
> > >
> > >Sandy writes:
> > >
> > >I am curious about the response of our list to the Ninth Circuit decision
> > > yesterday striking down the Feds' attempt to lift the license of a
> > doctor
> > > who recommended marijuana for medical reasons. Betty Fletcher and Alex
> > > Kozinski were two of the three judges; there was no dissent. In this
> > > morning's New York Times, Eugene offers a favorable review of the
> > decision
> > > (as against Vik Amar, who found it "too sweeping). I know that I find
> > the
> > > Federal claim "authoritarian," and I have my suspicions that Eugene
> > might
> > > even be willing to agree, with regard to this specific example. (Of
> > > course, a paradox is that there are at least four "authority systems"
> > > competing with one another: The national government, the California
> > state
> > > government, doctors claiming their professional authority, and,
> > finally,
> > > judges also evoking their own authority to interpret the Constitution.)
> > In
> > > any event, assuming that judicial review is ever justified :) , I
> > applaud
> > > the Ninth Circuit and the coalition of "left" and "right" in behalf of
> > > liberty.
Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds
College of Law, University of Tennessee
1505 W. Cumberland Ave., Knoxville, TN 37996-1810
Attempt no more good than the people can bear. --Thomas Jefferson
More information about the Conlawprof