Commerce clause abuse

TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | Walter E. Williams

[Dane]

Senator Feinstein, others, Introduce Legislation to Reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban

So? Feinstein can intoduce anything she likes. She is a Senator afterall, but I digress.

We have to focus on your constant doom and gloom, afterall.

It seems this thread is all about you and your knee jerk fears.

[philman_36]

Uh dude, your "direct" question is not based in reality.
Uh dude, my "direct" question is based in reality. Your refusal to answer the question is tantamount to you admitting that you do, in fact, support the AWB extension.
Acquiescence by silence. Deal with that!

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I've always held to that particular interpretation myself. The Bill of Rights was both a blessing and a curse---probably more of a blessing though, for absent it, I'm sure we'd be a lot further down the road towards statism than we are now.

[Dane]

Uh dude, my "direct" question is based in reality. Your refusal to answer the question is tantamount to you admitting that you do, in fact, support the AWB extension.

Whatever, Ms. Cleo. That's your opinion as an American to have.

Notice that I didn't say that your opinion sucks.

[philman_36]

So?
You did ask...And the renewal of AWB has been proposed how?
We have to focus on your constant doom and gloom, afterall.
No, we have to focus on the fact that Democrats are trying to continue and expand the AWB. This isn't about me no matter how much you may try and give the impression that it is. It seems, afterall, that it is more about you.
We also have to focus on the fact that you refuse to answer, or even give your opinion, a simple direct question.
It seems this thread is all about you and your knee jerk fears.
It seems that this thread is all about you and your continued desire to misdirect, castigate, suppress, admonish and make a victim of yourself, just like Hillary.

[tacticalogic]

Consider it doing your part for the environment, saving the endangered red herring (which BTW, is also a Commerce Clause issue).

[Dane]

No, we have to focus on the fact that Democrats are trying to continue and expand the AWB. This isn't about me no matter how much you may try and give the impression that it is. It seems, afterall, that it is more about you.

And so, are the democrats running Tom Delay?

A simple yes or no will be suffice.

[philman_36]

That's your opinion as an American to have.
That isn't an opinion, acquiescence by silence is a fact.
Notice that I didn't say that your opinion sucks.
And?

[philman_36]

It was a pretty good article, wasn't it.

[Scenic Sounds]

The commonly understood meaning of "regulate" at the time the Constitution was written was "to keep in good working order", as in "to regulate a clock".

I think that if the courts were to take it upon themselves to hold that "the commonly understood meaning of 'regulate' at the time of the Constitution was written was 'to keep in good working order,'" nothing would change. I can't think of a single example in which the Congress passed a law under the commerce clause and didn't say that it was doing so in order to promote the interests of interstate commerce. How can a court legitimately question such Congressional determinations? Should courts hold their own hearings on whether, for example, child labor laws are on the whole good or bad for the long run interests of interstate commerce? Should they convene juries to help them decide these issues? Where does the Constitution say anything about courts performing that function? Shouldn't the fact that the Constitution doesn't expressly grant the judiciary any power to regulate the Congress be given some consideration by a court that wishes to become more activist in this area?

People who blame the courts for what they see as an unconstitutionally large federal government are totally missing the boat. If we want a smaller federal government, the only way to get that is to elect representatives to Congress who share our view. The courts can't legitimately perform that task for us.

[Dane]

LOL! With your reply #129, you are the ace of idelogical cards.

Keep on posting dude, with each one of your posts you make my point.

[philman_36]

And so, are the democrats running Tom Delay?
A simple yes or no will be suffice.
I can't answer an incomplete question with either a yes or no. AAMOF (as a matter of fact, since you aren't "hip"), I can't properly answer any incomplete question.
Want to try again and rephrase that?

And how about you?
You do believe that the Assault Weapons Ban should continue, don't you?
A simple yes or no will be suffice.

[philman_36]

Keep on posting dude, with each one of your posts you make my point.
What is your point?

[philman_36]

...will be suffice.
snicker...

[Dane]

I can't answer an incomplete question with either a yes or no. AAMOF (as a matter of fact, since you aren't "hip"), I can't properly answer any incomplete question

What is so "imcomplete" about the question of "are the democrats running Tom Delay".

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Oh that's right, earlier on in this thread you said my opinion "sucks".

How dare I say speak up towards the great and all mighty Phil.

[Protagoras]

Do any more drugs today?

[tacticalogic]

I think that if the courts were to take it upon themselves to hold that "the commonly understood meaning of 'regulate' at the time of the Constitution was written was 'to keep in good working order,'" nothing would change. I can't think of a single example in which the Congress passed a law under the commerce clause and didn't say that it was doing so in order to promote the interests of interstate commerce. How can a court legitimately question such Congressional determinations?

By rejecting the "substantial effects" doctrine, and limiting Congress to "regulating" actual interstate commerce - ie real goods and services actually involved in commerce that crosses state lines.

[philman_36]

What is so "imcomplete" about the question of "are the democrats running Tom Delay".
Are they running Tom Delay...? Are the Democrats running Tom Delay in the Kentuckey Derby? Are the Democrats running Tom Delay around town? Are the Democrats running Tom Delay at high rev?
You got the picture?
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Not to me.
Oh that's right, earlier on in this thread you said my opinion "sucks".
Yeah, your opinions usually do suck, to me.
How dare I say speak up towards the great and all mighty Phil.
Oh, methinks that thou art the one which presumes to be the great and mighty one. All others art peons and serfs when compared to thy august self, daring to expose thy duplicity and tactics.

[Protagoras]

It was on a Limbaugh thread that degemnerated into a WOD thread.

Like this one did too? Big stretch on this thread too.