IssueRaiser

It's not very interesting to argue that a state might change its mind on some question, because that's always true, and there's no way to...

It's not very interesting to argue that a state might change its mind on some question, because that's always true, and there's no way to rebut or even engage that argument. On the other hand, I thought maybe you were suggesting that Congress could pass a law relying on the "Godel inconsistency" of Filburn to usurp state authority. Well, no, they can't; they're bound by the judicial precedents that fence Commerce Power authority in.

Posted by tptacek on May 28, 2015, 12:18 AM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

It's not very interesting to argue that a state might change its mind on some question, because that's always true, and there's no way to...

tptacekMay 28, 2015, 12:18 AM

It's not very interesting to argue that a state might change its mind on some question, because that's always true, and there's no way to rebut or even engage that argument. On the other hand, I thought maybe you were suggesting that Congress could pass a law relying on the "Godel inconsistency" of Filburn to usurp state authority. Well, no, they can't; they're bound by the judicial precedents that fence Commerce Power authority in.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue