[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: The Commerce Clause has been recognized to be quite powerful and can be used to ban most anything if 1) both houses of Congress choose to do so, 2) the President agrees, 3) the people agree, and 4) the USSC rules a challenge to it constitutional.
That said, I think it was a chicken-$hit way for them to go about it.

Why do you question their ruling? What "should" they have done? Using your notion that the Bill of Rights are not restrictive of the unamended Constitution. If there is no "judicial error" involved, why complain?

Using your logic, there is nothing that we can do about this, because any amendment attempting to restrict the action of the government can just be ignored if there is some power which seems "unrelated" to the restriction.

Why, asked another Freeper, is it not permissible to ban Bibles under the Commerce clause?

[robertpaulsen]

"attempting to restrict the action of the government can just be ignored"

I didn't say that. Where was the second amendment challenge? There wasn't any.

"Why, asked another Freeper, is it not permissible to ban Bibles under the Commerce clause?"

I didn't say they could. I think it would be a free speech violation to ban bibles.

Let's stay on topic.