Justice Thomas wrote: "While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination."
Good point.
I would disagree as to this being a good point, with the exception of the opinion concerning the commerce clause.
Justice Thomas concludes, (or infers) that it is the provence of the individual states to determine what rights are given to citizens concerning the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd amendment simply (and rightly ) states, "shall not be infringed".
Take a look at the 1st amendment. " Congress shall not..."
Or, several articles of the constitution itself, " the states are prohibited ", "congress is prohibited", etc.
Likewise, the 9th and 10th amendments.
It is clear, that when a power is granted or prohibited, the party granted said power, or prohibited from exercising said power, is Expressly Specified.
In the case of the 2nd amendment, the prohibition of infringement is ALL ENCOMPASSING.
Neither Congress, Judiciary, Executive branch, The States, nor EVEN THE PEOPLE, can infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
---- "seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States", ---
Leaving unsaid, of course, the obvious fact that states are required to conform to constitutional basics when regulating 'such matters'. -- It would not occur to Thomas that weirdos like you, roscoe, --- would think otherwise.