Replies

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause," Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, "then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Justice Thomas is absolutely right. We have been betrayed completely by the USSC on the Commerce Clause. There is simply no denying it.

The Supremes have granted the ferragummit (or attempted to) virtually unlimited regulatory power via this Commerce Clause travesty.

The Founders could not possibly have endorsed such an interpretation, and neither does the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination codify such an absurdity.

It is nothing but a raw grab for unconstitutional Federal power.

Tyranny, in other words.

How do we remove Supreme Court Justices?

Was Scalia in the majority on this decision?

I believe impeachment is in order when such Tyranny is promulgated by a Federal Judge...

Was Scalia in the majority on this decision?

Sort of. He wrote his own opinion concurring in the judgment, but for his own reasons. No one else joined him. Dissenters were O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Thomas. Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, which was right on the money IMHO. Look up Gonzalez vs Raich and read them for yourself if you want.

Now that’s a Constitutional amendment worth its weight in next weeks gold. Judges ruling outside the original intent of the Constitution is an impeachable offense and considered treason, as is any implementation of communism in any federal program. All charities & social programs are to be privatized along with EDUCATION.

The Founders could not possibly have endorsed such an interpretation, and neither does the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination codify such an absurdity.

What the founders may or may not have countenanced is irrelevant. For one, what's good for Hamilton is not necessarily good for Mason. They weren't unanimous in their views.

It's the law that matters, as written. The Framers created a supreme national judiciary, unaccountable, whose opinions carry the same weight as Constitutional text, and from whom there is no appeal. The zeal of the framers to create a strong central government betrayed them. They succeeded in their quest for an energetic national government who could control the states. Pity.

So, what does the commerce clause mean? Whatever a majority of the SCOTUS says it means. Don't like it? All you have to do is get 2/3rds of each house, plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures to agree with you and pass an amendment.

2/3rds of each house plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures is required to alter the Constitution. A far cry from "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

As long as we have Article 3, along with the flabby language of the Constitution, we have UNLIMITED government.