broad to allow for federal regulation of interstate commerce and the growth of the economy in this country. but over time, the supreme court has made clear that the commerce clause limits the federal government, that there is limited authority under the commerce clause. the state of the law now is such that the federal government, through the commerce clause, is only permitted to regulate channels of interstate commerce instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. and with respect to the third category, the supreme court has made clear in the lopez case and in morrison that non-economic activities are not covered by
broad to allow for federal regulation of interstate commerce and the growth of the economy in this country. but over time the supreme court has made clear the commerce clause limits the federal government, limited authority under the commerce clause. the state of the law is such that the federal government through the commerce clause is only permitted to regulate channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. with respect to the third category the supreme court has made clear in the lopez case and in morrison that noneconomic activities are not covered and
about this lopez case, as well. his sentence is also likely to be commuted. he is 74 years old, he s served 35 years of a sentence. let me just remind whatever he wanted. he was part of the f al and back in the 1970s and 80s. he proclaimed in front of a judge, a i am an enemy of the u.s. government. he was fighting for freedom for puerto rico. one of the many things they did was the bombing of the tavern down and the wall street area where four people lost their lives. they were killed in a scene that was echoed years later on 9/11 and many ways. it was considered the first terrorist attack on wall street. why would this person s sentence be up for commutation? well, i am not sure i know the answer. and i will speculate. look, this was a very bad guy. more than 200 attacks in the 70s in 80s. the clintons tried to spring him
about this lopez case, as well. his sentence is also likely to be commuted. he is 74 years old, he s served 35 years of a sentence. let me just remind whatever he wanted. he was part of the f al and back in the 1970s and 80s. he proclaimed in front of a judge, a i am an enemy of the u.s. government. he was fighting for freedom for puerto rico. one of the many things they did was the bombing of the tavern down and the wall street area where four people lost their lives. they were killed in a scene that was echoed years later on 9/11 and many ways. it was considered the first terrorist attack on wall street. why would this person s sentence be up for commutation? well, i am not sure i know the answer. and i will speculate. look, this was a very bad guy. more than 200 attacks in the 70s in 80s. the clintons tried to spring him late in the bill clinton
i would like to see you answer that. the two choices you gave me was it would only apply to the law so it s a narrow ruling and the other one is that it s really important. i agreed with both of the pictures you articulated. we argued that the court had invalidated the individual mandate it would only apply to this one and would be limited in that sense. but the other time side has argued there is virtually unnecessary and proper claus authority. this decision repudiates the view. it accepts every single legal argument we made about it. there is a period in jurisprudence from 1995 a in the lopez case in which nothingç w struck down exceeding commerce claus authority.