Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights

AmmoLand ^ | June 16, 2023 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

If Commerce Clause overrides the Second Amendment, the federal government is no longer one of limited powers and enumerated powers.

[Macoozie]

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!

[Vaquero]

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4161110/posts

[Dave911]

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.

[hinckley buzzard]

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.

[marktwain]

Thanks. I forgot it had been posted by Blood of Tyrants.

[sauropod]

.

[Salman]

The whole point of including the Bill of Rights as amendments was to head off such reasoning.

[IamConservative]

More and more, everyday, evidence grows that the movie “Idiocracy” was a documentary.

[ExTxMarine]

If Commerce Clause overrides the Second Amendment, the federal government is no longer one of limited powers and enumerated powers.

If the Commerce Clause (as currently interpreted) which means any action (OR INACTION) that "may" affect commerce, in any way, is under the jurisdiction of the Feds, then you are correct. But, if that is correct, then the Feds have NEVER had limited or enumerated powers!

However, if the Commerce Clause was actually used as it was intended, to only give the Feds control of interstate and international commerce conditions, then no...they would still be limited. The problem is NOT the Commerce Clause, the PROBLEM is the bovine flop SCOTUS interpretation that gave the Feds complete control of our entire economic system, down to you and me bartering over a gallon of milk in exchange for a dozen eggs. THAT is the problem.

[Waverunner]

[ConservativeInPA]

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).

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.

[unread]

"based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights."

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..

[marktwain]

However, if the Commerce Clause was actually used as it was intended, to only give the Feds control of interstate and international commerce conditions, then no...they would still be limited. The problem is NOT the Commerce Clause, the PROBLEM is the bovine flop SCOTUS interpretation that gave the Feds complete control of our entire economic system, down to you and me bartering over a gallon of milk in exchange for a dozen eggs. THAT is the problem.

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.

[marktwain]

Judge Roth was in private practice for about two decades, about 1965 - 1985. She was first appointed by Ronald Reagan.

[muir_redwoods]

“ 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.

[SMARTY]

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.

[marktwain]

Judge Janet Roth in 2005 at a Senate hearing on judicial security.

[bgill]

She’s 88 and showing signs of senility.

[ohioman]

Holy cow. That’s Mitch McConnell!