Posted on 08/10/2005 12:59:24 PM PDT by Know your rights
Thanks for providing the evidence that you misquoted me; what I said was, "They [the USSC] ruled that Congress may do so [regulate intrastate traffic under the Commerce Clause] to prevent hindrance to interstate traffic."
Explain how the Commerce Clause is so explicit in placing intrastate activity outside of federal authority. Especially when the clause uses the phrase "among the several states",
Exactly by using that phrase, it explicitly draws a boundary between intrastate and interstate activity and limits Congressional authority to the latter.
and does not even *explicitly* allow "interstate" regulation!
*snicker* More preposterous semantic games. You're running on fumes.
So you really didn't mean to say, "because the Commerce Clause explicitly puts intrastate activity outside of federal authority".
You meant to say, "because the Commerce Clause explicitly puts intrastate activity outside of federal authority unless it is to prevent hindrance to interstate traffic."
Pretty cavalier with the word "explicitly", aren't you? Not so "explicit" after all, if there are exceptions, wouldn't you say?
Did FDR's court come up with a "substantial hinderance" test?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, puh-leeze! It does not! (and here you go again with your "explicitly")
"Among the several states" draws an explicit boundary? "Between", maybe. But "among"?
The courts have ruled that "among the several states" extends the regulation of what you call interstate commerce all the way into the state to the final destination! That's an explicit boundary?
Look. Educate yourself on this and get back to me when you know what you're talking about.
You assume that I agree with that ruling. But correct or not, it was much more restricted than the FDR court's "substantial effect" fabrication.
Courts have ruled all sorts of things plainly contractory to the text of the Constitution. Did you not know that?
You meant to say, "because the Commerce Clause explicitly puts intrastate activity outside of federal authority unless it is to prevent hindrance to interstate traffic -- assuming you agree with that one exception, which you're not saying you do."
You'll quote the court's exception to support your argument but you won't admit to agreeing with it. You really do deserve the "weasel" title, you know.
And that means what? That those rulings are not valid? That we are not required to abide by them?
What is your point? And contractory to the text according to who? You?
I'd be willing to bet that there are just as many people who would say the court is 100%-right-on-the-money with some ruling contractory to the text of the constitution. Now what? Jump ball. We all vote? Majority rules?
That is a falsehood. If there's a weasel here, it's not me.
And that means what? That those rulings are not valid?
Correct.
That we are not required to abide by them?
At a minimum, it means that we are required to not cite them as accurately representing the meaning of the Constitution.
And contractory to the text according to who?
All intelligent and honest readers of the Constitution.
Well, that goes without saying. That's your basic premise, for crying out loud.
You've stated that a ruling you disagree with is not valid. Are you saying, therefore, that you are not required to abide by that ruling?
If not, then your position is meaningless, an impotent and frustrated personal opinion of a courts's ruling.
"All intelligent and honest readers of the Constitution ..."
...have reasonable debates on the interpretation of the words and phrases in the constitution.
According to Christian doctrine, we are not obligated to abide by morally repugnant laws and rulings. Rosa Parks is a good example of this.
That probably works best when the Christians are running things -- they ain't.
Which Constitutional doctrine, precisely, is that? Can you point to it please? If you cannot, I suggest you butt out.
"In fact we are duty bound by Article VI, and as citizens, to support & defend constitutional principles"
We are duty bound by Article VI? In what way? Who's "we"? Are you a judge? A state officer?
We're supposed to support and defend constitutional principles? Not the U.S.Constitution, but its constitutional principles, huh?
Go back to bed, lightweight.
It is really amusing to see Paulsen come right out and admit that a "ruling contractory to the text of the constitution" is a meaningless "Now what? Jump ball" type situation to him.
--- He has no shame.
93 musanon
Which Constitutional doctrine, precisely, is that? Can you point to it please? If you cannot, I suggest you butt out.
I 'pointed out' the doctrine in the next sentence, you oaf:
" -- In fact we are duty bound by Article VI, and as citizens, to support & defend constitutional principles. -- "
We are duty bound by Article VI? In what way? Who's "we"? Are you a judge? A state officer?
No robert, I'm just another citizen who swore an oath to support & defend. -- And meant it, unlike you.
We're supposed to support and defend constitutional principles? Not the U.S.Constitution, but its constitutional principles, huh? Go back to bed, lightweight.
You bet bobby, all citizens have an obligation to support & defend our Constitution. Your failure to admit it shows everyone the lightweight around here.
Be ashamed.
If not, then your position is meaningless
False. While an unconstitutional ruling imposes no moral requirement, I'm morally obliged to consider indirect effects like what will happen to my family if I'm arrested. But in addition to being required to not cite them as accurately representing the meaning of the Constitution, conservatives are required to condemn them if asked about them, and to give them appropriate weight in making decisions like choosing candidates (and their stands on judicial nominations) in primary and general elections.
So what's new? This is just regurgitated Politics 101. Substitute "liberals" for "conservatives" in the above and one can make the same point.
You're wasting my time.
You've stated that a ruling you disagree with is not valid. What are you going to do about it? Are you not required to abide by that ruling?
All asked and answered. Have you not had your coffee this morning?
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.