| The Supreme Court handed down a great decision last week, striking down the federal Violence Against Women Act. The Act made violence against women a federal civil rights violation and allowed women who are the victim of violence to sue their attackers in federal court. The Court was following up on its 1994 decision that struck down a law banning the possessions of guns on school grounds. In both cases, the court upheld the principle of limited government and our system of federalism. In law school, when I learned about the commerce clause of the constitution, I discovered that it's a joke. Everything is covered by the commerce clause. I remember my Constitutional law professor asking us what isn't covered and not being able to come up with anything. Flushing a toilet has an effect on interstate commerce. The constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes." Since the 1930's the Court has interpreted this clause to give Congress the power to pass laws regulating activity that has any effect whatsoever on interstate commerce. Obviously, it doesn't take too much imagination to find all kinds of effects that almost any behavior has on commerce. There is no reason that remedies for violent actions against women can't be found through state law. Does every rape have to be a federal case? Isn't assault and battery a common law tort for which there is a remedy under every state's law? Isn't rape a crime in every state, just as murder and robbery are? Feminist ideologues and members of Congress believe that passing new laws declaring ancient crimes to be violations of civil rights will somehow benefit women. Enforce law that exist instead of clogging the federal books with a million new laws that cover every aspect of life. The writers of our Constitution envisioned a limited central government with most power over everyday life being vested in the state governments. Thank god the Court is trying to move back in that direction. |