[jeffdavis]

Good idea. How about:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That would keep the pesky federal government out of our personal affairs.

[Reelin]

The interstate commerce clause made for a fine end run around the spirit of that bit in the end.

If we do ever manage to address the interstate commerce clause, we'll have to account for the fact that our day to day functioning has come to depend on a number of large federal regulatory bodies whose legitimacy is derived from it (ex FDA, FCC, etc).

[AnthonyMouse]

> we'll have to account for the fact that our day to day functioning has come to depend on a number of large federal regulatory bodies whose legitimacy is derived from it (ex FDA, FCC, etc).

The simplest way to deal with that would be to have those bodies continue to exist and publish "suggested" rules, which all the states could then adopt wholesale if they don't want to be bothered to do anything different.

Or a state could do something different, if they wanted to, which is kind of the point.

[xyzzyz]

I don’t really think that a lot of day to day functioning depends on FDA. FDA definitely has a lot to say about a lot of things, and, arguably, without it, some undesirable things would happen more often, but all in all, we would be mostly fine.

[david38]

Sure, but then federal support of state projects gets tied to whatever the federal government wants the state to do. The state isn’t bound, but it’s political suicide to turn down money.

This is a powerful weapon that can be used for both good and bad.

[jeffdavis]

This is why direct taxation (16th Amendment) was a mistake. It allows the federal government to take away the citizens' money first, and then give it back to the states, with conditions.

If the federal government had to collect from the states, then there would be more oversight and power for states to say "wait a minute, why are we giving you money and then begging to get it back".

In theory, the result could be the same. Congress could still pass spending bills and give the money over with conditions. But in practice I think states would be in a more powerful negotiating position.

[nkozyra]

Ultimately the flaw with this clause is the flexibility and amenability of the Constitution.

[jeffdavis]

Federal drug laws were upheld on the grounds that they are regulating interstate commerce ("regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;").

The idea that growing plants on your own land for your own consumption would some how fall under this legislative power is ridiculous. It's not "flexibility", it's fraud.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich