Save us from the libs before it's too late...

Just one question....  if the governments job is not to "dole out punishment"  then who???  While using that Article as their argument seems quite off... it is still important to me as a citizen that we protect our women and give them the right to sue companies (which is the cash remedy you speak of)  if they are raped on the job.  In my mind its like L&I injuries... in this case a deeper injury with severe psychological problems ass'd. 

I don't think he's saying it's not the government's job to dole out the punishment, just not the federal government, which I actually agree with. The states deal with almost all crimes of that matter, do they not? I actually don't know, I know very little about law, and most of it came from a high school Government/Contemporary Issues class.

I think it's an abuse of power the Supreme Court was never intended to have.  They've begun effectivly writing legislation rather than just interpreting it.  The SC has become the most powerful branch of the federal government, and to be honest it scares me.  I'm with you, there will be negative consequences if another left leaning judge is appointed (I too, am a conservative).  Though I'm not sure it can be stopped. 

Yeah! And the damn Supreme Court let the blacks go to the same schools as us!

Oh wait, that was a good thing, right? 

Why is so necessary for you to provoke the anger of the other political party.  Many liberals might agrees with you if you don't blatenly insult their party in your title.  Do you care about the issue at hand, or do you just hate the democrats.  Maybe I should just start this response with, "All change is bad, progress ends here! join the conservatives in pleasentville and enjoy identyless confomity."  But seriously,  its irritating to constantly see this. 

 But paynes4, Rush Limbaugh SAYS we have to be mean and nasty. That's how we know we're BETTER. Besides, them damn LIBERALS are NAZIS (because remember, national socialism = actual socialism, not fascism).

Cakeface...I don't quite get your point of view.  Brown v. Board of Education is COMPLETELY different from what I'm talking about here.  I'm talking about the interpretation of the Commerce Clause as a means of police power, and you bring up a case involving the 14th Amendment.  If you're going to try and refute my point, at least use a case that's semi-relevant.  Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean about Rush Limbaugh or how he pertains to this argument at all.  Basically what I'm saying is random jibes at the right don't make you sound intelligent if they are completely unrelated.  Quite the opposite, actually.

Paynes-It wasn't so much an insult than a statement of what needs to happen, because in case you haven't noticed, it's not the right wing attempting to push this kind of legislation through.  I don't hate dems, I just think that if they get their way on this particular issue, the nation will live to seriously regret it.

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Beanie. Mainly about the point that the Supreme Court has become the most powerful section of the government. While this is probably true, if it wasn't the case, then the civil rights movement would have been an even more difficult struggle (and some might argue, an impossible one).

And besides, the point wasn't to sound intelligent. It's hard to do so when you're making political arguments because you generally have to make some fatal assumption in order to take a political stance. For instance, liberals (contemporary meaning), usually put more stock into humanity than conservatives. Their assumption is that we should preserve human rights and diginity and that all else stems from that. So in the context of their assumption, their interpretation of the Constitution, while maybe not correct, is "okay" within their assumptions.

It has been my experience (and I could be wrong, but my Father lives on the Kitsap peninsula in a town called Poulsbo, where Rush Limbaugh is a God and Barack Obama is reffered to as "the N***er"), that conservatives base their assumptions of rugged individualism, and "looking out for number one." It makes sense then, from this point of view, that taxes should be lowered, and the government should stay out of our business. However, it makes it really hard for an individual who bases his belief of "looking out for number one" to make any real humanitarian effort. That said, Church groups are considered to be one of the most conservative (socially anyway), and most helpful charity groups.

In regards to your OP, I don't really care to read the bill, but from the sounds of it, I think that we should be helping rape victims. I would gladly chip in some tax money if it helps a rape victim or two.

But I would love to hear why we're going to live to regret it. Just out of curiosity.

We're going to live to regret it because it sets the precedent for the federal government to regulate anything and everything in life under the guise of the regulation of commerce.  Think of it this way: in U.S. v. Lopez they tried to say guns in schools were tied to commerce because it degrades the educational system leading to a less productive workforce. Guns in schools SHOULD be regulated, but the concept of federalism dictates that these kinds of powers are given to the STATES.  Rapists and people who bring guns to school will be punished, but the federal government was never meant to be the one to dole this kind of punishment out.

Now, if this precedent is set, by that standard Congress could (hypothetically) regulate things like fast food, because childhood obesity creates health problems inexorably tied to commerce.  They could also constitutionally regulate gay marriage (the tax benefits involved?  Definitely commerce).  See the problem here?  The Constitution was laid out in general terms in order to act as a guideline.  The states were the ones that were supposed to pick up where it leaves off and dictate the specifics.  You get rid of that and the system is going to begin to collapse.

I think this whole thread is mainly based in the age old argument of states' responsibilities versus the federal government's responsibilities.  Basically, federalism versus anti-federalism.  I don't agree with your first post that the Supreme Court is all of a sudden the most important branch of government.  It's powers really haven't changed much since Marbury vs. Madison in the 1800s when judicial review was established (which, by the way, is not in the Constitution but is considered by most people to be an integral part of our political system and is an institution that has been implemented in most other democratic nations).  If anything, the power of the Executive has been amplified the most in the last few decades, namely by the Bush-Cheney administration that believed in the supremacy of the Executive over the Legislative.

As for the original case being discussed, I do believe that the federal government should only have to worry about criminal proceedings that affect the nation as a whole (namely, treason, international/interstate commerce laws, and, recently, terrorism), but it is true that the states really dropped the ball on prosecuting this specific type of crime in the 1990s.  Does this mean that the states should be relieved of this burden? Probably not, but, historically, the federal government has been the institution that picks up the slack when the states don't do their job, as has been evidenced recently by the federal involvement in Oregon state's public school system.

As for the commerce clause being grounds for a government takeover of our fast-food industry, I think that may be a bit dramatic.  I enjoy the passion, but I think that this government takeover conspiracy that has conservative Republicans all riled up is a very well orchestrated propaganda piece.  Why wasn't there a big uproar from Republicans when the Patriot Act was passed (under the Bush administration)?  The federal government has gotten extremely involved in the economy lately because there was a financial crisis that threatened to bring the entire financial system down on the heads of the very bankers who advocate free markets and deregulation.  Not because they wanted to regulate the fast-food industry, but because they wanted to ensure that the system didn't fail and throw us into a depression many times worse than the one we are currently experiencing.  Furthermore, I don't think that the system is going to begin to collapse if we allow the federal government to do the jobs that the states are ignoring.  This has been going on for decades and the system hasn't collapsed yet.

turnerh2, I love your flamethrower quote.

The Original Poster's explaination of the case at hand is, no offense, awful, which has lead to your fair question.  OP seems to have much more limited resources than I do. 

Having read the opinion and federal statute-

What really happened here was in 1994 a woman was raped by two VA Tech football players.  They eventually got out of University punishment on technicality, due to the wording of the school's sexual harassment policy.  The woman then left VA Tech and sued the individual football players for damages. 

This was not a criminal matter, it was civil.  Based on the facts of the case, there may not have been enough evidence to convince a prosecutor to take the case.  Do you remember the Duke LaCrosse player case?  Now you know why we wind up in civil court, where individuals can represent their own interest. 

Civil court has what's known as venue considerations.  If A, a resident of WA and his friend B, a resident of OR rape C, a resident of WA, at OSU, then C can only sue A in federal court, which will apply OR law.  This is what's known as "diversity jurisdiction." Now you know why we are in federal civil court. 

The rapist's lawyer then challenged the CONGRESS assertion that gender violence effects interstate commerce.  Quite simply, he was wrong.  It does, and it did in this case.  Returning to my parallel scenario, how else would you classify C's (a resident of WA) deicison to quit school in Oregon due to the extreme and outrageous actions of A and B?  Now you know why the statute was being discussed in federal civil court.

Parties with a substantial interest in the outcome of a case may intervene to represent their own interests.  So, upon getting wind of a federal statue being groundlessly challenged, the U.S. intervened.  To make clear, the U.S. is not primarily seeking damages against the rapists or acting in a police capacity and this is not a criminal matter. 

The case ended up in supreme court due to the appeals process and the fact that the statute was in its infancy at the time of the action and often times lower courts wish to get clarification about its interpretation, rather than take a guess, wasting litigant and judicial resourse.

Now I think your question is answered?

If you would like a real and ongoing/relevant case to get mad at the supreme court about, I suggest Ashcroft v. Iqbal

No. 

These rules only give people who state a plausible claim for relief an avenue for remedy.  Part of the claim must include explanation of diversity jurisdiction- why state courts can't hear the matter.  For example, if I step on your shoelace and trip you on the way into Taco Bell in Iowa, I have just interfered with interstate commerce and you would have to bring a federal claim because Iowa court has no jurisdiction over me.  Your assertion that this statute somehow takes power and responsibility from states demonstrates zero or minimal grasp of judicial system workings. 

You also seem to be understandably confused by the titles of the cases you are reading.  United States is not seeking relief here, nor acting as "police/regulators."  They are providing the resources to properly represent the congressional intentions when statutes get challenged.  Do you think the raped woman seeking money damages from a football player and her counsel were seriously prepared and interested in seeing a constitutional challenge through while adequetly representing the interests of Congress?

M Parallel- You raise interesting points...wrong...but interesting.  Let's stop taking what I say out of context there.  I'm perfectly aware the fast food/gay marriage analogies were out there.  They were meant to be.  Hence my putting the word hypothetically in parentheses.  As for my decription of the case of U.S. v. Morrison, I HAVE read the case and just gave a really quick overview of it because for the most part people don't care about the case law.  It was merely an example to further my position.

As to your argument about the case, YOU are actually the one who is wrong.  After the initial case was dropped as excessive punishment, the girl brought this case up to federal court with the specific complaint that the attack had violated violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.  I'm also perfectly aware the case wasn't initially about the commerce clause...that's just the defense that the lawyer used SUCCESSFULLY (you said he was wrong...?) where the 5 right leaning justices struck down the statute. 

Further, you don't need diversity jurisdiction to bring to bring this case to court, seeing as the language of the actualy statute states,

"The Federal and State courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over actions brought pursuant to this part."

You forget that there are TWO ways to bring something into federal court.  Diversity jurisdiction and/or federal question.  If the law broken is outlined in federal statute (which this is, seeing as it's a part of the US Civil Code), then you can be tried in federal court. 

I'm also perfectly aware that the U.S. wasn't seeking damages against the rapist, hence it being a CIVIL case.  This being said, said civil case STILL does not belong in a federal court.  The language of the challeged statute states:

"A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender and thus deprives another of the right declared in subsection (b) of this section shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate."

Let me reiterate my point again...these cases should be reserved to the states.  No matter how much we all hate rapists and think they deserve what is coming to them, the federal should not be able to step in and have jurisdiction over a case that should belong to the state.  The fact that the federal government isn't the one pursuing the guy is irrelevant.  The fact that it even provided this forum for the girl to bring the case is what I have a problem with. 

I just think it's sneakily suspicious that your whole argument is based on jurisdictions when I happen to know Chen's 311 midterm is due this week...just saying...because I know from past experience how hard he pushes jurisdictions and remedies...

You misinterpret the statute language.  Concurrent jurisdiction means that a state can hear the same claim for relief so that non-joinder of party/prejudiced defendant issues don't arise. There was a corresponding title 9 claim and we never saw any form of the dismissed complaint in state court.  Therefore, diversity jurisdiction seems the only way to get this into federal court.  The lower court dismissals were all FRCP 12(b)6 dismissals for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  WTF is "dismissal for excessive punishment?"

Your comments on civil cases still make no sense.  US not seeking money damages makes this a civil case? Civil cases don't belong in federal court? State courts magically have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state residents?

Having noticed the 60+ negative federal citations of Morrison I did mix words about the defense lawyer.  Good catch.  But about those citations...federal courts have clearly found ways around this judgement dozens of times, and yet the sun still rises?

I have no idea who "he" is.  My political science career ended at 250.

I don't care what the reasons are for passing this law.  This is the kind of meaningless banter we need to keep our government from doing anything! 

Get to the point. We are protecting women.  It should be Illegal for a company to force a woman to sign an agreement not to sue if she is RAPED on the job!   Hello... civil liberty?? 

If you hurt your foot on the job (say, your a waitress) the place you work pay "workman's comp".   Federally mandated workman's compensation. The company is only held liable for their employees getting hurt on the job.  Places of employment are kept safer and in accidents that do happen the employees are protected.  All of them.  

Now as a lib-tard myself, if I was RAPED at work and I didn't have money to go get medical treatment I would defitely want WORKMAN'S COMP.  Oh yeah, and I also like those federally funded libraries, roads and schools.  Are these your so called police powers?  Are you afraid of your tax bucks getting spent on lazy asses?  Get over it, no system is perfect and what are you going to do?  Let the people that were genuinely shafted by life rot?

We have the most stable govenment and judicial system in the world.  If you want to be liberal, at least proceed intelligently.  Reading this makes me want my Obama vote back.  You might wish to learn about arbitration agreements, as well as 10-99 employment before taking a job and assuming everything will be fine.

 I have not read the specifics of the case, nor do I know any of the specifics however:

I find this all very interesting and it seems you guys are debating two separate sets of law here, one reason I find it interesting.

Also to turnerh2, if you didn't insult people I may be more sympathetic to your argument, just saying for future refrence, I am a liberal, but the things many liberals are doing make me want to kick them in the balls, don't just assume all liberals follow their leaders blindly. Just like I could say oh your stupid because bush was stupid, but you probably disliked some of things bush did as well.

Oh and on the point of liberals pushing things through a) the reason healthcare isn't moving forward is because liberals arn't pushing it through, they want a bipartisan solution, even though thats realistically not happening. b) there are many bills, like the patriot act, which the conservatives pushed through as well, also many of the the executive orders bush put into effect (and the fact Cheny thought he belonged to none of the branches of government, but was his own 4th branch). So again, people are not their party, all parties are equally corrupt and aggressive.

No, I'm not "afraid" of my tax dollars being spent on your so called "lazy asses."  However, the state is more than capable of handling it.  As to your argument about roads and schools...completely irrelevant to the argument.  We're talking about the federal infringing on rights of the states.  Funding roads and schools does not do this.

Sorry turnerh2, but I simply don't agree with you. 

You argue that the state is capable of handling the issue and that it should be left there on principle.  Clearly, for the issue to have come so far, the state wasn't able to handle the issue and I'd rather justice get served somehow rather than be held up on pointless bureaucracy.   I'm thinking the rape-victim feels the same way at this point. 

It's this kind of mind-set that validates the existence of decade-long lawsuits and the convolution of debates. (Whether socially-backward or not, you seem intelligent enough; insults, whether inflectional or literal, never win people over.  If you had simply stated your argument, some of the "libs" might have actually agreed with you.  If you're a Poli-Sci major, you would do well to wise up to this fact.) 

(For example, notice how I did not once insult you right-wing nutjobs, your racist undertones or your laughably "fair and balanced" Fox News.) 

(Aw, dammit.)

By the way, I, too, like your flamethrower quote.  It certainly is an interesting invention, isn't it?

"regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Your example doesn't relate to your initial point.

If you wanted to rant about the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. you should've stated that from the start.

@Greg- United States v. Morrison DOES have to do with the commerce clause though...read the case. 

@ Nietzsche- even being on the right, I laugh at Fox news referring to themselves as "Fair and Balanced."  I also make fun of Ann Coulter (who incidentally makes me embarrassed to be a republican sometimes).  If you look at the powers of the federal government, they have been growing at an alarming rate and this is just one more step to the process happening.  It's not with the spirit of the Constitution to allow random things to be regulated under the guise of "commerce."  Look at Article I Section 8 of the constitution regarding enumerated powers, and see that the powers were meant to be broad powers that affected the country as a whole.   Crimes like treason deserve a place in federal court.  While I know someone will say rape does affect the country, and I will wholeheartedly agree with them, it doesn't affect it in the way the founders would have said warranted federal jurisdiction.

I think this thread is lost on most people.

I still take issue with your assertion that this is not a federal issue.  Rape is very hard to prosecute criminally.  Therefore, the only recourse for many victims is civil remedy.  As well, civil proceedings provide the avenue for a rapist's actions to make their way onto a person's background check documents.  Prior to 1994, if a person cannot be tied to the state in which the incident occurred, that's it.  Woman gets raped, rapist goes scot free and gets a job teaching your kids.  That sexual assault bears costs onto society is not really up for debate IMO.  Congress assembled a "mountain" of data to prove this, and I can personally think of tons of hypothetical situations that demonstrate.

You seem to advocate the state courts handling this matter.  This leads to three outcomes I can think of:

1) Revisions in personal jurisdiction that create a de facto federal jurisdiction; or

2) Careful rapists get a free pass; or

3) Society takes the law into their own hands (this really shakes the judicial system at its roots)

Can you disagree with any of these outcomes or suggest alternatives?

Okay, I see where you're coming from now, and that IS an interesting point.  Before I respond though, if you could clarify one thing for me?

What do you mean when you say, "Prior to 1994, if a person cannot be tied to the state in which the incident occurred, that's it."?

The way I understand it, if a crime occurs in a state then the state gets to prosecute you.  If a WA resident gets raped by a resident of TX, then the person from TX gets prosecuted in WA.  To say otherwise would imply if I went over to OR and killed someone, since I couldn't be tied to the state I would get off scot free.  A felony is a felony, right?

That's correct, BUT, a prosecutor has to take the case to get the matter into criminal court.  This is notoriously difficult in rape cases, because often times physical evidence is limited, victims are too traumatized to fully cooperate with the police, wait to report, etc, and consequences for prosecutorial conduct are dire.  This is what happened in the Morrison case. 

This is a particularly tough issue in the wake of the Duke Lacrosse player affair; prosecutors are often simply not willing to hedge their careers, or even waste their time.

So, from the victim standpoint, they essentially have to try their case twice in criminal court.  This heightened standard is why litigants always try for criminal verdicts before taking a matter to civil court, where the conviction can be effectively used as persuavsice authority evidence.  OJ Simpson, acquitted in criminal court but then later found liable for the murder in civil court, was a terrific example of this.

If the victim wins the civil case, there is no felony conviction or criminal record.  The tortfeasor pays the victim, and it is recorded as a judgement on their credit reports, public records, etc. which potential employers and others come across when doing due dilligence. 

So, if, as in the case at hand, you cannot get the appropriate prosecuting office, which is one person, to take your case for whatever reason, which is far more likely in a rape case, and the state civil court does not have personal jurisdiction over all the parties in the action, as in your hypothetical, then prior to 1994, there is nowhere to take your case => "that's it."

"That's correct, BUT, a prosecutor has to take the case to get the matter into criminal court. This is notoriously difficult in rape cases, because often times physical evidence is limited, victims are too traumatized to fully cooperate with the police, wait to report, etc, and consequences for prosecutorial conduct are dire. This is what happened in the Morrison case"

Everything you said is perfectly true, and very sad.  However...I fail to see how trying the case under federal jurisdiction changes this fact?

"This heightened standard is why litigants always try for criminal verdicts before taking a matter to civil court, where the conviction can be effectively used as persuavsice authority evidence. OJ Simpson, acquitted in criminal court but then later found liable for the murder in civil court, was a terrific example of this."

Civil cases are always tried after criminal cases.  I'll use the same analogy I learned this with, and that is of a strainer.  In civil cases, the holes on the strainer are larger, more stuff gets admitted and the procedural rules aren't so stringent.  Criminal cases are like a strainer with much smaller holes...less is admissible, and the thought process behind this is there is more at stake.  Should a civil case happen before a criminal case, evidence that may be unadmissible in the criminal trial will then go on public record and then taint the criminal trial. 

"So, if, as in the case at hand, you cannot get the appropriate prosecuting office, which is one person, to take your case for whatever reason, which is far more likely in a rape case, and the state civil court does not have personal jurisdiction over all the parties in the action, as in your hypothetical, then prior to 1994, there is nowhere to take your case => "that's it.""

But...just like we were talking about.  The state DOES have personal jurisdiction if the crime/tort occurred within it's borders. This being said...I fail to see how the state wouldn't have PJ.  Also, I'm not saying that the system isn't flawed.  However, if cases of criminal justice are flawed, it requires reform at the state level.  Just because something isn't working optimally doesn't justify the inclusion of federal jurisdiction.

The 1099 form is a tax form.  Just thought I might let you know since you yourself are so intelligent.  I was also a manager at a restaurant for 3 years and know all about federal sexual harrasment policies and arbitration.  I also know that in that time (as a manager) we never asked employees to sign a form saying they wouldn't sue us if they are raped on the job.

As for wanting you Obama vote back.... Idiots exist in all pockets of society... so you wish to restructure the way you model your values and make decisions.

I appreciate that you are arguing about this rationally with all the flavors of people a political topic brings 'round.  :) 

I don't think that roads and schools are off the topic here- I'm just pointing out that a lot of things are handled at a federal level.   What I am getting out of what your saying is that this should be left to individual states to decide and I disagree!  By making this a federal law it would be illegal in ALL states and the Supreme Court would have power to punish as seen fit (if a case goes this far, of course).

Where do you suggest putting this clause?  Or do you think it is acceptable for companies to have gender biased contracts? Should a company be allowed to ask a woman to forego her right of recourse in order to work there?  Does this issue change from state to state?

State civil court (torts) does not have personal jurisdiction over out of state residents.  You have to file in federal court and then the federal court will apply the law of the state where the tort happened.

As far as 10-99, yes it is a tax form...that precludes you from workers compensation among other things.  As well, "10-99 employee" is well known HR jargon. I cannot imagine an establishment with a paper to sign waiving your right to sue someone in the event of a rape.  However, many employers have arbitration agreements, which waives your right to sue for any reason.

"I cannot imagine an establishment with a paper to sign waiving your right to sue someone in the event of a rape. "

But a company did do this which is why someone in Washington decided this is necessary.
Arbitration statutes are not sexist. And a form backing a woman out of her options if she is raped is. 

The reasons Democrats are pushing this are retardedly ineffective and off track, and the Republicans are being brash and stubborn just to keep the dems from getting anything done (even though they are good enough at that themselves!!!)  I think this is a wonderful example of why our government is so inefficient.  So let's just keep arguing and keep that bill from going anywhere.

I still have a hard time believing specific rape contract.  Is this the sort of thing you are talking about (which was an arbitration agreement BTW)?

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/10/kit_bond_sam_brownback_pat_roberts_c...

I side with repoublicans on this issue.  Arbitration is a better solution.  When you allow these things to go to trial, there will be a flood of "entreprenurial litigation" to reach the same end result, minus lawyer fees.  Who do you think will really pay for this? 

Any verdict rendered in favor of a victim against an employer will probably go to appeal: a bench trial with a judge.  Arbitration is a bench trial with a judge.

I wasn't aware that rape cases had to be made civil cases so often. This kind of changes my opinion; rapists need to be brought to criminal trial, IMO, and if we have to do it under the commerce clause, even though the reasoning is a little absurd, so be it. Hasn't that clause been used for quite awhile to justify all sorts of much weirder and/or less legitimate Supreme Court decisions? In any case, I'm just not a fan of civil court in general, since our country tends to be a bit sue-happy (not that there aren't perfectly good reasons to sue someone). But I'm not exactly experienced or knowledgeable in law. And now I'm just rambling.

Commerce clause brings rapists to civil trials when state civil courts do not have jurisdiction.

Getting more rapists into criminal court is a whole different ball of wax...

I know I sound like a broken record, but I still stick to my guns here.  Just because something is broken at the state level, it does not mean that the federal government gets to step in and claim jurisdiction.  It means reform at the state level.  This is the purpose of federalism.

I'm still quite confused as to you saying, 'State civil court (torts) does not have personal jurisdiction over out of state residents. You have to file in federal court and then the federal court will apply the law of the state where the tort happened." 

They do...they really, really do.  Personal jurisdiction is separated into 2 sub-categories, general and specific.  Specific is the relevant one here, and it pertains to cases that have a specific connection to the in-state activity of the defendant.  This means as a WA resident, no matter where I commit a tort...I still will be held accountable for my actons under the jurisdiction of the state where I committed said tort.  Someone always has PJ. 

The real problem, I think, is that our society has substantially changed since the Constitution was penned in 1787. Two hundred and thirty-two years ago, we were chiefly a nation of farmers. Most of those who were not farmers were engaged in commerce, trade, and marine professions. The manufacturing sector, while it existed even then, was far smaller than it is today. Prior to the Civil War, most people were content to stay close to the place of their birth. Interstate commerce, while important even then, was not the commonplace thing that it is today. Each state was regarded almost as its own country, and in a few cases (New York, Virginia) they rightly could have been. Most of the trade that was conducted was on a regional, piecemeal basis. The railroads, while in development as early as the 1830s and 1840s, did not come into their own until after the Civil War. Prior to the 1850s, most of the population of this country was native born, white, and Protestant. All that changed with the millions of Irish and Germans who came to this country starting in the 1840s, and who presaged later waves of immigration, from Italy, Poland, Scandinavia, Russia, China, and Japan. The institution of the corporation and its future importance to the nation was not foreseen by anyone present in Philadelphia in 1787; nor were the millions of speakers of strange tongues who would later arrive here chasing a dream. Corporations as such took on an entirely different cast after the Santa Clara Decision and the decline of chartering by the state and federal governments as a means of regulation.

I do not dispute that Franklin Roosevelt made many missteps and did several questionable things in his effort to deal with the Depression. However, I think he was right on the mark when he loudly complained that the Supreme Court Justices of his day were living in the "horse and buggy" era of regulation of commerce. It would have been better had the Constitution been altered to deal with changing circumstances; but as everyone knows, the Constitution is notoriously hard to change.

Ultimately, while the law is important, I look more at the intent behind the law. The law was created to serve man, not the other way around; and therefore, it strikes me that when the law says "You shall not do this" when what is to be done would substantially help the citizenry and there is no mischief being caused by what is to be done, I think that the law should be changed. I have little use for legalistic arguments quibbling over what is meant by the "regulation of commerce." Ultimately, reinterpreting the meaning of the Constitution is a tradition almost as old as the country itself, and goes all the way back to one of our earliest Chief Justices, John Marshall. So if you want to roll back every Supreme Court decision from Marbury v. Madison down to the present, be my guest, but I don't think it will go over well.

That said, I am concerned about the growing power of the Supreme Court. It seems a disfunctional institution in terms of the scope of its power and the means by which its members are selected and appointed. However, then again, the entire structure of our government seems disfunctional these days. However, I would pose a question to all the conservatives who are concerned about the "police power" of the federal government and its strangling effect on liberty: where were you all when the USA-PATRIOT Act was passed back in 2001, and renewed just a few years ago? Where were you when American citizens were denied the right of habeas corpus, on the premise that they might possibly be terrorists, but might as easily not be? Where were you when George W. Bush gained the presidency chiefly on the say-so of the very Supreme Court that you are now calling out? You cannot have it both ways, one way when your party is in power and another when it is out of it.

I would hasten to add that I agree in general terms with the sentiment (which I assume you hold) that the United State is far too litigious a society, and is litigious past the point of sense.  We have lawsuits for things that don't make sense, and meanwhile there is no justice to be had for people who have genuinely been wrong.  Laws that began with good intentions are twisted and perverted to make society a less liveable place.  I cannot say I know what to do about this.  What I do know, however, is that neither party has it particularly right.  At this particular moment, though, the Democrats seem to be less wrong in my view than the Republicans.  That said, I'm not inclined to trust any of them very far.

Under specific jurisdiction, one typically needs to have substantial contact, like owning/ soiliciting business or needs to get "tagged" with service while in state.  Commission of intentional, writ-of-trespass torts like cause of action stemming from rape are generally going to fall outside of this. 

As far as constitutional validity, I think we will see revisions within our lifetimes.  Many high-powered lawyers are behind this.  I agree that it is stupid to run anything according to a 200+ year old document.