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 ...
88 year old senile women should never be allowed to exercise power over society.
This interpretation has no logical basis. Even if the Commerce Clause grants the Federal government such broad powers, which it doesn’t, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution and as such they override anything in the original text.
Your argument assumes Progressives expect to follow the Constitution as if it is a contract.
Progressives see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome.
True. Both have been abused excessively. You can't always depend upon 'conservative' justices to uphold our rights when the commerce or taxing clauses are in play. I'd add 'police powers' to that list as well. Even Thomas gives far more deference to the state than I would.
That’s Janet Reno’s sister, Janet Rotho!
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.