No abstract

No abstract

noting one assumption underlying United States v. Lopez is that Court favors "significant decentralization"). In Brickey's view, Lopez counters the congressional trend towards federalizing traditionally state-controlled acts by serving as a "reminder that, contrary to contemporary thought, congressional power under the Commerce Clause is not unlimited, that states have primary authority to define and enforce criminal laws, and that much of what Congress has enacted needlessly alters the balance between federal and state jurisdiction." Brickey, supra, at 843-44. 2. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 3. See Douglas H. Ginsburg, Delegation Running Riot, 1995 No. 1 REG. 83, 83-84 (1995) (book review) (noting that some scholars "labor on in the hope of a restoration" of "ancient exiles," such as Commerce Clause, to their status of sixty years ago).

No abstract

No abstract