|
|
|
|
|
|
by nickff
4477 days ago
|
|
|
The "always" comes from the fact that the federal law would have to be challenged, and it would "trump the state law" until the federal law is struck down (or at least until a preliminary injunction against the federal law has been granted). While I personally agree with Mr. Marbut's interpretation of the commerce clause's limited scope, I think that the deck is stacked squarely against him, especially since Raich.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich |
|
|