I’ve had a few listeners of the podcast, especially of recent episodes such as the latest with Randy Barnett, who say they’d like to have Lucretia and I walk through how the Commerce Clause of the Constitution became the workhorse of modern civil rights law, and lots of other regulatory schemes.
We have treated this subject before, but never systematically, and I’ve also heard from listeners who say, “Please, please—no more Commerce Clause!” Though I do have to add, I love Commerce Clause discussions, because it allows me to roll out one more time my favorite send-up of Progressive abuse of the clause: “Just imagine what Stalin could have done if only he’d had a Commerce Clause!” (Note: Randy Barnett didn’t think much of this quip when I rolled it out in his session at Berkeley Law last Tuesday.)
In fairness to both sides, the podcast audience has been growing rapidly, and a lot of new listeners have never heard our previous rants learned discourses about the Commerce Clause.
So time for a poll on the issue. Here it is:
P.S. And while we’re at it, please use the comment thread to suggest whiskies we should review on the podcast. Or at least drink.
I’ll add that in the next few weeks we’ve got episodes planned in the Jordan Peterson sensation, and a chat with the chief architect of the Harvard lawsuit coming to the Supreme Court.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.