I don't know if you were replying to my post or the initial post, but I was disagreeing with the above poster, and in essence agreeing with you. That being said, when the court ruled against the wheat farmer, it was basically asserting that even activity restricted to a farm, impacts interstate commerce. I agree with both this rationale and the decision. The original poster, who argued, that since nano tech did not "touch" interstate commerce was beyond scope of the Constitution and thus beyond the ability of Congress to regulate it, has a view of constitutional law that predates 1933.
Regards
Winston
Time for the history lesson for the historically challenged. First, I earned a master's degree in Constitutional Law, so I am at least mildly qualified to comment.
The Notion that you can avoid the plenary powers of Congress merely by only doing business in a single state has not been true for over seven decades. Prior to the Great Depression the United States Supreme Court used a judical philosophy called formalism. Like a lot of 19th century ideas, it was grounded in the belief that law was in fact a science that could be proved through logical deduction. One of the effects of this judicial philosophy was that the Supreme Court took a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. While taking a narrow view of the commerce clause seems upon its surface to relatively easy, the net result was a series of decisions that over time did not make any sense. For example, you could legally regulate some activity that "touched" commerce but not others. It was not always easy to infer what regulations were constitutional and which weren't. Thus, you could only regulate working conditions for some employees but not for all. Federal and State minmum wage laws were frequently upheld for women, but not for men. They were upheld for "dangersous" jobs that affected public safety but not for bakers, eventhough they were prone to lung infections and disease from the flower.
Finally with the great depression, formalism came to an abrupt halt, and the Supreme Court due to a variety of highly debated historical reasons switched its position. From 1933 onward, the Court essentially has given the congress plenary (complete) power over virtually all forms of commerce in the United States. In fact, by the end of the 1930s the court ruled against a farmer who was growing wheat on his farm, for his OWN consumption. The wheat in this case would NEVER leave the farm and would only be used to feed the family and livestock. The Court ruled in effect that since the farmer would not buy any wheat or hay, he would impact interstate commerce. And thus the farmer was forced to no longer grow wheat in violation of depression era price controls.
Thus, the arguement that the government does not have the power to regulate nano particles is DEEPLY flawed.
Regards
Winston
What is most interesting is the fact that the apple and the acer were the same price. The acer did come with more ram and a slightly bigger harddrive, but was otherwise identical. Assuming you upgraded the drive for $100.00 and bought a 1 gig stick of ram for another $100.00 you are still within $200.00 of the Acer. Thus, it seems to me that the Apple premium is about $100.00. The question now is: Is a computer that will soon be capable of triple booting, running the superior Mac OS X, and having the best form factors in the industry worth $200.00?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you were replying to my post or the initial post, but I was disagreeing with the above poster, and in essence agreeing with you. That being said, when the court ruled against the wheat farmer, it was basically asserting that even activity restricted to a farm, impacts interstate commerce. I agree with both this rationale and the decision. The original poster, who argued, that since nano tech did not "touch" interstate commerce was beyond scope of the Constitution and thus beyond the ability of Congress to regulate it, has a view of constitutional law that predates 1933. Regards Winston
Time for the history lesson for the historically challenged. First, I earned a master's degree in Constitutional Law, so I am at least mildly qualified to comment. The Notion that you can avoid the plenary powers of Congress merely by only doing business in a single state has not been true for over seven decades. Prior to the Great Depression the United States Supreme Court used a judical philosophy called formalism. Like a lot of 19th century ideas, it was grounded in the belief that law was in fact a science that could be proved through logical deduction. One of the effects of this judicial philosophy was that the Supreme Court took a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. While taking a narrow view of the commerce clause seems upon its surface to relatively easy, the net result was a series of decisions that over time did not make any sense. For example, you could legally regulate some activity that "touched" commerce but not others. It was not always easy to infer what regulations were constitutional and which weren't. Thus, you could only regulate working conditions for some employees but not for all. Federal and State minmum wage laws were frequently upheld for women, but not for men. They were upheld for "dangersous" jobs that affected public safety but not for bakers, eventhough they were prone to lung infections and disease from the flower. Finally with the great depression, formalism came to an abrupt halt, and the Supreme Court due to a variety of highly debated historical reasons switched its position. From 1933 onward, the Court essentially has given the congress plenary (complete) power over virtually all forms of commerce in the United States. In fact, by the end of the 1930s the court ruled against a farmer who was growing wheat on his farm, for his OWN consumption. The wheat in this case would NEVER leave the farm and would only be used to feed the family and livestock. The Court ruled in effect that since the farmer would not buy any wheat or hay, he would impact interstate commerce. And thus the farmer was forced to no longer grow wheat in violation of depression era price controls. Thus, the arguement that the government does not have the power to regulate nano particles is DEEPLY flawed. Regards Winston
What is most interesting is the fact that the apple and the acer were the same price. The acer did come with more ram and a slightly bigger harddrive, but was otherwise identical. Assuming you upgraded the drive for $100.00 and bought a 1 gig stick of ram for another $100.00 you are still within $200.00 of the Acer. Thus, it seems to me that the Apple premium is about $100.00. The question now is: Is a computer that will soon be capable of triple booting, running the superior Mac OS X, and having the best form factors in the industry worth $200.00?