> But doesn't that suggest, rather paradoxically, that while > Congress has too little power to do a small thing, it has > sufficient power to do a larger one?
I don't see the paradox myself. Much of the constitutional debates surrounded local (state) rights and the desire of people to govern themselves according to local standards and custom (and the fear that the new federal government would run rough shod over such). Per Lopez, Commerce Clause, ad nausium: if the commerce in question has substantial effects on commerce between the states (large thing), Congress has the regulatory prerogative (ignoring of course the blatant abuse of "substantial effect" and other assaults on the clear cut meaning of the Commerce Clause). But if a small geographic application of law has little or no effect on commerce, much less interstate commerce, then the feds have no appointed powers. This seems to adhere to the original desire to defer to local autonomy. And yet, growing your own weed, in your own back yard, for your own use, as permitted by state law is a federal offense. Now there is a paradox. ----------------- Guy Smith Author, Gun Facts www.GunFacts.info [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof 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.
