Roger Pilon - Interpretation of The U.S. Constitution

Interpretation of The U.S. Constitution

Pilon believes that the government only has power to regulate conduct that violates other people's rights. This view is in the tradition of John Locke's view of natural rights. An example of this is the use of contraceptives. Pilon reasons that since people using contraceptives (see Griswold v. Connecticut) were not violating anyone's rights, the state had no authority to regulate such activity. However Pilon believes abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. He reasons that everyone, he hopes, would agree that killing a baby one day after it is born is murder. Then, what is the difference between one day after and one day before? The answer is there is no principle difference. Then, what about two months before or three? This sort of line drawing, Pilon reasons, is meant to be left to the political branches.

Pilon believes that Congress should be kept within its enumerated powers. He believes the Supreme Court has failed to limit Congress with the so-called spending power and the commerce power. He refers to it as the "so-called spending power" because nowhere in the Constitution is it an independent power. Therefore, Congress can spend money only to further its otherwise enumerated powers. One of those powers is the power to regulate commerce among the states, nations, and Indian tribes.

Pilon believes that the court was incorrect in Wickard to assert that Congress can regulate activity that, aggregated together, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Pilon reasons that everything has some effect on commerce; therefore, the court's reasoning essentially makes Congress's power unlimited. Pilon states, however, that United States v. Lopez fixed this problem to a small degree, but, then again, Gonzales v. Raich weakened that decision.