Constitutional Quandary

The New York Times recently featured an editorial about the supreme court nomination of Elena Kagen. The controversy that has surfaced in her nomination deals with Kagen’s stance on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Kagen supports the use of the Commerce Clause for the passing of federal laws regulating social problems. The conservative party however believes that these laws can not be justified using the Commerce Clause and are thus taking away rights that belong to the states.

This article was written for the readers of the New York Times. These readers include people in New York and throughout the country buying physical copies of the newspaper as well as people throughout the world who read NYTimes.com as well readers of the NYT iPhone app. As a writer for the New York Times the author has a very good credibility since the New York Times is one of the most respected American News Papers and a personal favorite of mine.

The author argues that the use of the Commerce Clause for non-commercial legislation is beneficial to our country and that the clause has been used to make some of the most important society-improving legislation in our history. He cites the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act which set a minimum wage and limited child labor – all federal laws.

I do agree with the opposition’s argument that these applications differ greatly from the original purpose of the Commerce Clause. However this does not mean that the Commerce Clause should not be allowed to be used for the passing of non-commercial laws in the future because the benefits far outweigh the risks in the situation.

The republicans should thus quit complaining about a legislative tactic that has been in use for decades just because they need an excuse not to vote for Kagen and should instead listen to the author of the article and make more laws benefiting our society.