US v. Morrison -- question

[Earl Maltz]

I disagree with this view.  To me, Raich is nothing more than a 
conventional Wickard/Darby case, involving government regulation of a class 
of activities that is clearly economic.  For all the disingenuous 
legislative history in Morrison, neither that case nor Lopez involves such 
a class of activities.

At 03:50 PM 11/3/2005 -0600, Doug Laycock wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5E0C0.A52AEA1D"
>
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
>The trial lawyers carefully set up the facts in Raich; there was no 
>exchange.  Plaintiffs grew their own in their homes; the more disabled 
>plaintiffs had friends do it for them, for free.  The government's theory 
>was that there was production, which is economic, and which substituted 
>for a commerical exchange.
>
>True enough, but equally true of all household production.  Cooking dinner 
>is production, and it substitutes for going out to a restaurant.  Picking 
>up the mess in your bedroom produces a service of economic value, and it 
>substitutes for hiring a cleaning service.   On the government's theory, 
>the market transaction for which the household production substitutes does 
>not have to be a legal transaction, so more intimate bedroom activities 
>may also substitute for a commercial transaction.
>
>This does not overrule the exclusion of "noneconomic activities" in Lopez 
>and Morrison, but it announces a very expansive conception of what counts 
>as economic.
>
>Douglas Laycock
>University of Texas Law School
>727 E. Dean Keeton St.
>Austin, TX  78705
>    512-232-1341 (phone)
>    512-471-6988 (fax)
>
>
>
>----------
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Don Crowley
>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 3:39 PM
>To: 'Sean Wilson'; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE: US v. Morrison -- question
>
>Depends on what you mean by backing off.  I suppose the Raich case could 
>be cited as backing off but there the issues get complicated by the drug 
>question and conservatives can distinguish the case from Morrison by 
>saying that there was an economic exchange.
>
>
>
>Conceivably you are thinking of Tenn v. Lane where OConnor joins the 
>centrists (couldnt resist) to apply the application of Title II of the ADA 
>to the States over an 11th amendment claim.
>
>
>
>Or you could be thinking of Nevada v. Hibbs where individuals were allowed 
>to sue states in federal court under the Family and Medical Leave 
>Act.  Here both OConnor and Rehnquist showed cold feetto the recent Court 
>trend.
>
>
>
>Don
>
>
>
>----------
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Wilson
>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:26 PM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: US v. Morrison -- question
>
>
>
>Has there been a case decided after US v. Morrison that tells us whether 
>or not the Court is backing off this commerce clause stuff? I had thought 
>that O'Connor was getting cold feet, but I can't remember how that thought 
>arrived in my head. I seem to remember another case out there -- is there 
>one? Could someone please post its cite or case name? Many thanks in advance.
>
>
>
><http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a/farechase.yahoo.com/>Yahoo! 
>FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.