Sniff, sniff

[k_sui]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002756175_energy23.html

Hmm, does anyone else smell that? No? Try again.

Yes, there it is -- dormant commerce clause. Heading our way.

Comments

[gupfee]

I seem to have misplaced my Energy Policy for Dummies book again--can you explain please?

Probably more than you might want to know, but . . .

[k_sui]

Umm, running around somewhere is a rather pointed discussion between Ozy and I re: the interstate commerce clause and its history of interpretation. I think it was last spring, but alas I have not the technical savvy to find it. I believe his comment was entitled "Boring legal crap" or something. For some reason I think it's in Pita's journal, but could be wrong. Congress has relied on a very broad interpretation to enact alot of laws dealing with stuff you would not necessarily believe has any direct relation to commerce, let alone interstate commerce -- alot of the public accomodation cases from the 60s were based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce

Re: Probably more than you might want to know, but . . .

[gupfee]

Actually, that's perfect, thank you. I now know enough to chuckle knowingly and nod sagely.

[clayfoot]

Bite your tounge, sir!