| ▲ | semiquaver 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | HWR_14 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wahern 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
In particular, Necessary and Proper as it relates to the taxing power, which the challenged statute relied upon, having been passed decades before the scope of Commerce Clause powers began their expansion, let alone Wickard v. Filburn. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | gowld an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. That's a Supreme Court opinion that only applies if the new case reaches their docket and gets reaffirmed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||