Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
You should have said that in the first place. What replaced it?
You younguns.
Wait, that can't be right, the case I am thinking of came after racial zoning/covenants were tossed, and the 30s seems rather early for that to have happened.
|
I guess I should have. Did we have this whole debate just because you didn't like the rationale for this decision you can't remember enough to name?
Anyway, if it's post-Lochner, then offering health and welfare as a justification was well more than they needed to do.
Now, let's discuss Wickard v. Filburn.
Or, in other legal news, that the law passed to keep this lively woman alive was ruled unconstitutional (I assume under the Fla. const.).
