Time for a new subject

[Glenn Reynolds]

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

> Sandy--
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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