As you read these cases notice how many times the Court states that it must give deference to Congress when interpreting its enumerated powers. See, e.g. casebook page 194 where the Court says:
Second, we owe a large measure of respect to Congress when it frames and enacts economic and social legislation. See Raich, 545 U.S., at 17. See also Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 729 (1984) (“[S]trong deference[is] accorded legislation in the field of national economic policy.”).
Similar statements are made throughout these cases--I have jokingly referred to it as "As you wish" Princess Bride deference. But notice this is a one-way ratchet constantly advancing the power of the national government and retreating from Tenth Amendment reserved powers, federalism, and the liberty to be governed closer to home in the states rather than centrally by the national government.
Why not deference to the Tenth Amendment, or to liberty, or to the balance set forth by the text of the Written Constitution (which says nothing about one-way deference)? Professor Randy Barnett has argued that the Court ought to approach constitutional interpretation with a presumption of liberty!
What are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment