Posted on 08/15/2019 4:02:27 AM PDT by marktwain
We will take your guns and make body armor be prohibited to citizens, we are from the democrat party and we are here to protect you.
“Those disgusting Americans can’t be allowed to have metal!”
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification Sen. Schumer is wrongly ignoring Congress's constitutionally limited powers with respect to his politically motivated proposal to exploit low-information voters to win votes for desperate Democrats by unconstitutionally prohibiting and regulating body armor sales.
More specifically, regardless what FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted people to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor imo, FDR's justices ignored that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that INTRAstate commerce was constitutionally off-limits to the feds.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Comparing Schumer's proposal for prohibition of body-armor sales with historical prohibition of alcoholic beverages for example, Schumer is "overlooking" that the states first ratified the 18th Amendment to give Congress the specific power to stick its big nose into intrastate commerce to prohibit sales alcoholic beverages.
18th Amendment:
"Section 1 of 3: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.Section 2 of 3: The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section. 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Schumer has the intelligence of a wet turd. Perhaps the good Senator and his liberal friends should by the same firearm restrictions as they have cast upon their state’s citizens. Why should their bodyguards be allowed assault weapons or high-capacity magazines? They are still citizens and should be treated the same as everyone else..
And Schumer’s long suit is not in the “smarts” dep’t. Both seem to be true statements.
Yes he views you as z wret he’d leaseant!
They gonna. Ha e to can steel plates & spray-on b3dliner.
With all respect to Mr. Weingarten, the camel’s nose under the tent was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). That was when SCOTUS ruled that the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) was superior to the 10th Amendment.
How is that? In some sort of ‘penumbra’?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.