This is how a heart breaks

It's over, and the Detroit Pistons have narrowly lost a repeat NBA championship.

In the first round of the playoffs, we beat the Philadephia Flyers 4-1.


We went on to beat Indiana, going down 2-1 before rallying and winning 4-2.


And we beat Miami in the Eastern Conference Championship, holding back their star players Shaquille O'Neal

and Dwyane Wade in a fierce 7-game series after going down 3-2.


The finals versus San Antonio was long and hard.


Games 1 and 2 were blowouts in San Antonio, with the Spurs winning 84-69 and 97-76.



Games 3 and 4 in Detroit were decided by even higher margins, 96-79 and 102-71 for the Pistons.



Game 5 in Detroit was a 1-point loss in overtime, when the team left Robert Horry undefended to allow a 3-pointer. Final score: 96-95.


We came back in game 6 to win 95-86 and postponed San Antonio's parade plans.


But the Spurs played best in game 7, winning 81-74.




Once we were so fine, you and I
And why you gotta make it so hard on me
Yeah it's hard on me

And I'm sorry but it's not a mistake
And I'm running but you're getting away


Well this is it now
Everybody get down

This is all I can take
This is how a heart breaks

You take a hit now
You feel it break down
Make you stay while I wait
This is how a heart breaks


No trophy. Our heads are hanging, not from shame, for there was no shame in this loss. Our heads hang with a broken heart.

Flag desecration

Yesterday, the House passed a proposed constitutional amendment, H.J.R. 10, against flag desecration. The vote count was 286-130 and was the sixth time the house passed such a resolution.

The First Amendment to the Constitution was added in part to protect criticism of the government. Yet this amendment, if it passes the Senate by a 2/3 vote and is ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 of them), will allow Congress to punish certain forms of criticism of the government. One survey reported that 75% of Americans support such an amendment.

The Founding Fathers knew that free political speech is essential to a democracy, even (especially?) when that speech is unpopular. Why have we modern Americans (predominantly "conservatives," who give plenty of lip service to the founding ideals), forgotten this?

Unconstitutional Commerce Clause powers upheld

"The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Fellow PHC students are familiar with the Federal government's ability to do almost anything based on an absurdly broad interpretation of the Commerce and General Welfare clauses of the Consitution. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision Gonzales v. Raich, decided on a 6-3 vote, has further stated that Congress can use the Commerce clause to pass any law that they can link to the economy in any way. To cite Justice Thomas's dissent,

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor agreed with the Ninth Circuit Court, which argued that Supreme Court precedent did somewhat limit Congress's commerce clause powers. Specifically, in U.S. v. Lopez, the SCOTUS held that Congress could not create gun-free school zones under the Commerce Clause, and in U.S. v. Morrison, in which the court held that Congress could not regulate gender-motivated violence (rape) under the clause. Both were non-economic activity.

Justice Stevens, speaking for the majority (himself, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer; Scalia, concurring) argued that

regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat (Wickard v. Filburn) or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding.

This decision is not primarily about marijuana, but the regulatory authority of Congress, but its immediate effects are on drug policy, and basically maintain the status quo. The Constitutional, federalist position rejects the status quo and calls into question part of the authority of Congress to regulate prescription drugs.

Political Animal notes that this ruling will find conservatives and liberals switching their normal positions on constitutional interpretation, proving that they are more concerned with getting their way in specific issues than the bigger picture of principles. How about the justices? SCOTUSblog notes that the "liberal" justices put their permissive reading of the commerce clause above the specific issue at hand, while the conservatives varied. In her opinion, Scalia's decision was not, an inconstistency as some said; the distinction is between activity that is part of a web of interstate commercial activity (wheat and marijuana distribution) and activity is not (carrying a gun). I don't agree with her argument, and at any rate, the Wickard decision was wrong.

O'Connor makes an excellent argument that this is not economic activity decision strips Lopez and Morrison of all significance. All Congress has to do to pass a gun-free school zone law or anti-rape law, in spite of the court's decisions, is to adjust the wording, she says. O'Connor is not courageous enough to take issue with Wickard, instead arguing that the effect of homegrown wheat on interstate commerce was far more significant than the effect of a few marijuana growers.

For an excellent, non-partisan, detailed analysis of the decision, see Lawrence Solum's Legal Theory Blog.

(article expanded and edited 13:30 June 8)

My sister

My sister Joy graduated earlier today (ok, yesterday, technically).



Joy loves God. And she loves animals, the land and the fruit of the land, painting, playing good music, her friends, her family, everyone else, cooking, eating, hard work, and hard play. And she's beautiful. More than enough to make any older brother proud.