Posted on 06/19/2023 4:32:14 AM PDT by marktwain
At least one judge in the Third Circuit believes the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights.
In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion.
Four judges dissented…
One of those dissenting was Judge Janet Richards Roth, appointed to the Third Circuit by George H. W. Bush in 1991. She was born in 1935 and started her governmental career working as a typist and administrative assistant in the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State in 1956. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 1965. Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006. She is a few days short of her 88th birthday (June 16).
Judge Roth makes a strong case, based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. She gives the usual litany of Progressive “arguments”: Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has to have more power than the Bill of Rights allows. That was then. This is now. Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit P. 96 of 107 :
In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power. Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause,2 is constitutional as applied to him. The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Her argument is based on “fail to address binding precedents”, that past decisions of the court override the plain text and meaning of the Constitution.
PoppyCock I say!
Because of course she is smarter than a majority of the supreme court justices. But then I can believe that for several of them, especially the last one.
The Commerce clause is historically one of the most abused clauses in the Constitution. Authoritarians have used it, along with the taxing power, repeatedly in their assault on freedom.
Thanks. I forgot it had been posted by Blood of Tyrants.
.
More and more, everyday, evidence grows that the movie “Idiocracy” was a documentary.
A couple of points. 1.) A Bush appointment. 2.) Never worked a real job in her life. 3.) Harvard Law grad.
The good news, 4.) She will soon die and burn for an eternity in hell.
As a free American, (if there still is such a thing.) living in America my whole life, one who served this nation in time of war, I can say this all honesty and candor.. I don't give a rat's rear end what "Progressive philosophy" has to say about anything.! And I feel pretty much the same about Judge Janet Richards Roth...
Our rights come from God.! Nowadays what comes out of our, so called, government is a soup full of lies, ridiculous dictates, faggot insanity and a large helping of socialist crap..!
I say we flush it, clean them out like rats in the barn, and start over..
You are correct. From Justice Thomas:
As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586—589 (concurring opinion). The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586—587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term “commerce” is consistently used to mean trade or exchange–not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112—125 (2001). The term “commerce” commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857—862 (2003).
Justice Thomas is a national treasure.
Judge Roth was in private practice for about two decades, about 1965 - 1985. She was first appointed by Ronald Reagan.
“ The Commerce clause is historically one of the most abused clauses in the Constitution. Authoritarians have used it, along with the taxing power, repeatedly in their assault on freedom.”
In an infamous example during the FDR junta, the commerce clause was used to control the price of tomatoes grown, sold and consumed within the state of Ohio (I think) because those prices could affect the price of tomatoes grown in California and sold in or near Ohio.
I call BS on that! The BOR is the bedrock of American government.
Every and ALL policies, laws, legislation, etc. hinge on the unambiguous and unequivocal adherence to the BOR!!! Deviate from the book at your own peril.
Judge Janet Roth in 2005 at a Senate hearing on judicial security.
She’s 88 and showing signs of senility.
Holy cow. That’s Mitch McConnell!
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.