Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

People talk commonly and, as it were, naturally about "social issues" as constituting a nest of issues distinct from the "economic" ones. It is not self evident what this means. After all, economics and sociology don't differ in their subject matter. They differ in their methods. If an economic issue is one an economist might discuss using the tools of his science, then everything human is an economic issue, for nothing is alien to supply and demand. And in that case, the separate nest of "social issues," the other half of the customary dichotomy, dissolves. Yet since it hasn't in fact dissolved, let's try to answer the question in the heading above. What counts as a “social” issue, as distinct from an issue within any other classifications, is largely a subjective matter. Broadly speaking, though, “social issues” are efforts to answer the question “what kind of a person do I think I am?” in the first instance and, collectively...

The listing of powers granted Congress by the Constitution is clearly intended to have a limiting effect. The framers were saying, "this far and no farther." Or else ... why bother?  If they had wanted any of the powers to serve as a blank check, they could have included only that one.  "Congress will do whatever the heck it thinks best." You only need one blank check, not a long list of them. Thus, it is axiomatic that none of the "enumerated" powers (a traditional though odd expression -- they weren't literally numbered in the text!) is supposed to be universal in its scope. I have always felt rather embarrassed on behalf of the Supreme Court as an institution by its decision to turn the commerce clause into the blank check power. Wheat grown on a farm, baked into bread and consumed on that very farm (and thus of course in the same state) was held in Wickard v. Filburn to be a matter of interstate commerce. You can read the decision here i...