To: NRA2BFree
He gets it right, just in time for Diane Feinstein to try to sneak her AWB through Congress!! Q: When is infringing the right to keep and bear arms not "infringing the right to keep and bear arms"?
A: When it's "regulating commerce among the several states".
30 posted on
06/02/2004 1:42:24 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
(I Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: tacticalogic
At law (well, traditional objective law at least), the various Amendments, being by definition intentional changes to the original document, are (traditionally) held to trump any affected portions of the original.
Here, the Commerce Clause would (traditionally) take a back seat to the 2nd.
No guarantees, certainly, of what ruling a modern-day ''court'' might make.
55 posted on
06/02/2004 2:24:34 PM PDT by
SAJ
(Buy 1 NGF05 8.00 call, Sell 3 NGF05 11.00 calls against, for $500 credit OB.)
To: tacticalogic
The regulating commerce clause does NOT trump everything else. It would be an infringement. The 2nd says "...Shall Not Be Infringed. It is the only universal application amendment. It does not specify which agency or government shall not infringe. There shall be no talking means something different in a group from "There shall be no talking by short people."
65 posted on
06/02/2004 2:47:31 PM PDT by
arthurus
(Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
To: tacticalogic
Q: When can Congress do whatever it pleases?
A: When it's "regulating commerce among the several states".
98 posted on
06/02/2004 9:13:50 PM PDT by
Djarum
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson