Ok legal/lawyer types, explain this one to me

[molson]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I understand all (at least most) of that.

This seems like a clear case of "The Ends Justify The Means."
When it comes to law enforcement I do not believe that is the attitude we should have.

The constitution is the basis of our government.
If the fed and/or congress ignore it (or make absurd claims to get around it) and the courts go along, it becomes a worthless peace of paper (or pig skin or whatever it is). Looking around I see it happen more and more from our government and it scares me.

I am sure there is a lot of things the federal government would like to do, but can't.
This was intentional.

I agree with that. Even if it means occasionally striking down well-intentioned federal legislation.

The expansion in federal power wasn't motivated by a passion over carrying out the intent of the commerce clause, it was motivated by the ends that such a liberal interpretation would provide. Courts just shouldn't think that like, it just makes them way too powerful. We don't have a problem with a court that exceeds its constitutional authority as long as we agree with the outcome (civil rights cases), but then yell about it if they do something we don't like.