The problem is that not even the members of the Supreme Court can agree on what these are or how they should be interpreted.
The everyday understanding of constitutional law is not the same as the legal understanding, which is part of the problem. The commerce clause, as read by any normal individual would not allow the Federal government to have anything to do with (e.g.) pot, but that is how it has been interpreted by the supreme court. No normal person would say that corporations are people, but according to the court they are. etc etc etc.
Reading the constitution, I get a clear picture of a federation of independent states. But this idea died after the Civil War, if not before.
The problem is that not even the members of the Supreme Court can agree on what these are or how they should be interpreted.
The everyday understanding of constitutional law is not the same as the legal understanding, which is part of the problem. The commerce clause, as read by any normal individual would not allow the Federal government to have anything to do with (e.g.) pot, but that is how it has been interpreted by the supreme court. No normal person would say that corporations are people, but according to the court they are. etc etc etc.
Reading the constitution, I get a clear picture of a federation of independent states. But this idea died after the Civil War, if not before.