There seems to be an unusual shortage of substantive discussion about whether or not Public Law 109-3 was/is constitutional. A quick Technorati search turns up plenty of claims that the law was unconstitutional, but alas no coherent argument as to why this is the case. Sure the question is more or less moot at this point, but it is an interesting topic nontheless. After my initial inclination towards unconstitutional, I then began thinking along the same lines as Tim Sandefur. What’s the deal? Have I just somehow missed the substantive blawgospheric conversation on this subject? Fill me in guys.
To clarify, I’ve seen plenty half-assed attempts, to which I will not link. Also there has been plenty of talk about the law and federalism. What there hasn’t been is meaningful discussion of constitutionality similar to Tim’s post. Post some links in the comment section if you’ve found some good posts on the subject.