elechi

Well, please understand that I've not heard the case of "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US" until just now. That being said, the problem I see with Wickard v. Filburn, is that it really pushes what could be considered interstate commerce. The point of the interstate commerce phrase, as I understand it, is two point:

• 1) To basically allow the United States's government control over it's economical future, both internal the country, and to foreign entities, and
• 2) regulate disputes between US states, territories, and other held lands.

Now, to have any true teeth, Congress honestly needed those powers, otherwise it couldn't plan for things like famines/natural disasters, state disputes, monopolies, etc. But, Wickard v. Filburn basically stated that you, as an individual, could no longer remove yourself from engaging in commerce if it made better sense for you to do so, if the government really wanted you to stay in. It also basically stated that actions that not only primarily commerce (such as overproduction of wheat) affect the markets are in their power under the Commerce Clause, that actions that secondarily commercial (by growing his own wheat, he was depriving the market of his purchasing other wheat) are under the Commerce Clause as well.

Now, after reading the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US case, there really wasn't a chance that guy was going to win. He wasn't being unfairly compensated, as he was still able to charge blacks, and not have to let them stay for free. He could still set the hotel prices. It was interstate commerce, as it's customers were across several state lines, and was located in such a way as to take advantage of that fact. I really don't know why he would involve the 5th Amendment, as I look this case over more, I see nothing the Civil Act Rights Law would have interfered in the least with the 5th Amendment.

There are differences between the two cases, obviously, but the biggest one was in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, the Motel was actively engaging in interstate commerce. Filburn wheat was never extended to be used for commerce.

Would you like me to expound further?

Another case I can't wait to see revisited. How that's not overreaching I'll never know. . .

Um, I think you got precedent mixed up. Wickard v. Filburn was tried before Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, so Wickard v. Filburn set precedent.

If that's true, how does the states (Virginia, Texas, North Dakota) additional anti-abortion laws made in recent years stand merit? If you functionally make it impossible to get an abortion in the state you reside in, could you still be considered upholding Roe v. Wade?

I have a question to ask you:

In cases of decisions like these, do you ever think the Supreme Court would ever change it's majority decision if a similar case was brought before it? (Assuming, of course, that they'd hear that sort of case again.)