UNITED STATES v. MORRISON (99-5)
169 F.3d 820, affirmed.
Thomas, J., concurring
Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 99—5 and 99—29
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER
CHRISTY BRZONKALA, PETITIONER
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
[May 15, 2000]
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Justice Thomas, concurring.
The majority opinion correctly applies our decision
in United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S.
549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my
view that the very notion of a “substantial effects” test under the
Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of
Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.
By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however
circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in
its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court
replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more
consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress
appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.