Wickard (Was: Do the Supreme Court's federalism decisions protect liberty?)

[Jonathan H. Adler]

Allan --

I'd love to see a copy of the article.

Thanks.

JHA

-------
Jonathan H. Adler
Assistant Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106
w) 216/368-2535
h) 216/320-9821
cell) 202/255-3012
jha5 at po.cwru.edu
jhadler at earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Ides" <Allan.Ides at LLS.EDU>
To: <CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Wickard (Was: Do the Supreme Court's federalism decisions
protect liberty?)


> I don't think the "economic activity" distinction has any merit
> whatsover.  Aside from the fact that the Court never defines the
> concept, the assertion is easily dismantled by reference to primary
> economics and to any plausible definition the Court might have thought
> it was using.  To state it very simply, a school is an economic market
> where students or their parents pay for the services of educators.
> Regulation of gun possession within this market is based on a desire to
> ensure that the purchasers are able to receive the product for which
> they paid, namely, an education.  And the rape in Morrison also
> involved an economic transaction, namely, an unlawful forced exchange
> of utility with a consequent economic loss to the victim, represented
> in part by the costs associated with the physical and emotional harm
> she suffered.  Essentially, the perpetrator asserted an ownership
> interest over the victim's person.
>
> I've written a more detailed essay on this subject which is scheduled
> to be published in the next issue of Const. Comm. If anyone would like
> draft version, I'd be glad to email it to them.  Just contact me off
> list.
>
> Allan Ides
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Seamon <seamon at LAW.LAW.SC.EDU>
> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:54 pm
> Subject: Re: Wickard (Was: Do the Supreme Court's federalism decisions
> protect liberty?)
>
> > On 13 Nov 02, at 18:21, Jonathan H. Adler wrote:
> >
> > > I think that there is another way to distinguish
> > > Wickard.  Unlike the statutes at issue in Lopez,
> > > and Morrison, the Agricultural Adjustment Act
> > > sought to regulate economic activity, as such.  It
> > > sought to regulate the terms of voluntary economic
> > > exchange by controlling prices, and could only be
> > > effective insofar as it controlled all instances
> > > of wheat production -- even those which were
> > > presumably intrastate and non-commercial.  Even
> > > though Alfonso Lopez was a gun courier, the
> > > activity being regulated (gun possession near a
> > > school) was not commercial, nor was the regulation
> > > focused on commercial activity as such.
> >
> > This is what the Court in Lopez presumably was getting at when it
> > distinguished the Gun Free School Zone Act provision on the
> > ground that it was "not an essential part of a larger regulation of
> > economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be
> > undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."
> > =============================
> > Richard H. Seamon
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > University of South Carolina
> > School of Law
> > Main and Greene Sts.
> > Columbia, S.C. 29208
> > phone: 803-777-6963
> > fax: 803-777-5827
> >
>
>