[robertpaulsen]

"A ruling from a judge on the United States District Court for Massachusetts."

Hmmmm. Went right over your head that this was a ruling against Thomas Jefferson, in 1808, the author of the Declaration of Independence, who was there when the Constitution was written?

Wouldn't you think that Jefferson, or even Madison (his Secretary of State), would have said something like, "Hey, that's not what we meant when we wrote the Commerce Clause!"

You have some quote, some cite, from any of the Founding Fathers who may have spoken out against Judge Davis' interpretation of the Commerce Clause?

"Do you have reference to any other district courts' rulings on the issue?"

Your turn. You find a ruling that supports your contention.

[tacticalogic]

"Hey, that's not what we meant when we wrote the Commerce Clause!"

Apparently it has, and continues to go "over your head", repeatedly, that Madison said exactly that in his letter to Cabell, which post dates this case.

[William Terrell]

Went right over your head that this was a ruling against Thomas Jefferson, in 1808, the author of the Declaration of Independence, who was there when the Constitution was written?

And this matters how? I have already pointed out one flaw in the judges ruling. One court ruling does not a truth make. Just look at the nutso rulings coming out of the courts, both state and federal, currently and in the past.

Wouldn't you think that Jefferson, or even Madison (his Secretary of State), would have said something like, "Hey, that's not what we meant when we wrote the Commerce Clause!" You have some quote, some cite, from any of the Founding Fathers who may have spoken out against Judge Davis' interpretation of the Commerce Clause?

They have said that. Their exact words have been posted to you, in quotes with references, at least a dozen times, two times that I have personally seen.

I'm not going to waste my time showing you something you have already seen and ignored.

Your turn. You find a ruling that supports your contention.

You presented a ruling from a judge in Massachusetts (which had at least one critical flaw in the reasoning). As you should know that ruling is limited to only one district. There have to be the same rulings in a number of districts for the reasoning to have any value in precedent at all. This judge may just be like the 9th Circuit.

If you are going to hold up your theory using federal courts, you must show a preponderance of opinion, not one flawed ruling.