First, my problem with the Court’s rationale in Lopez is that it’s clearly fact specific. Same with Morrison. I’ve always felt praise from our corner for these decisions was overdone. I’m all for these decisions, but they’re baby-steps. They left untouched the rationale for the broad holdings in Wickard v. Filburn and Maryland v. Wirtz.
Ramesh, my earlier comment about federalism being about state authority was in response to your earlier post in which you wrote, in part: “The Court seeks a federalism for states rather than one for citizens, as AEI federalism scholar Mike Greve puts it.” I figured you knew that.