Posted on 11/02/2005 7:48:05 AM PST by SmithL
For John Roberts, it was a "hapless toad'' in the path of a California housing development that represented the limits of the federal government's power to regulate activities within a state. For Samuel Alito Jr., it was a machine gun.
In a lone dissenting opinion as a federal appeals court judge in 1996, Alito argued that the federal ban on possessing machine guns was unconstitutional -- a stand described by both admirers and detractors Tuesday as one of the most revealing cases in the lengthy judicial record of President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"He understands the original design of the Constitution as being one of limited government,'' said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. In his opinion, Alito said the federal ban on possessing machine guns exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but a majority of his court disagreed, and the Supreme Court denied review. He took no position on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms.
Pilon said the case showed Alito's recognition that Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce is not a license "to regulate anything and everything.''
But Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the opinion is "perhaps the most powerful evidence that Judge Alito is very much a right-wing judicial activist'' willing to disregard congressional judgment. Another critic, Douglas Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, said Alito's opinion is disturbing for reasons that have little to do with gun control.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Really starting to like this guy!
Of course the confermation hearings will be fun.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
Love this judge!
But Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the opinion is "perhaps the most powerful evidence that Judge Alito is very much a right-wing judicial activist'' willing to disregard congressional judgment.I didn't catch the news. The 2nd ammendment has been repealed?
i for one AM!
may i remind everyone that we here in the Commonwealth of Virginia have had the Richmond Howitzers for over 150 years.
AND i believe that every member of the Unorganized Common Militia should HAVE & be COMPETENT with a "main battle rifle".
my choice is the M-1 Garand & 600 rounds of M2 ball.
free dixie NOW,sw
Liberals accuse conservatives of hypocrisy on the issue of judicial activism, saying they don't mind as long as the ox that's gored isn't their own. It's not true; understanding the Constitution and slapping Congress down when they try to use or grab more power than they actually have, is a far cry from discovering previously unknown Constitutional mandates upon government for the latest Marxist wet dream.
Dindncha know? The 2nd amendment only protects the government's right to own firearms. Who'd think the framers ever intended a bunch of farmers and private citizens would ever need to resist and repel a benevolent government? What kind of chance do you think a bunch of private citizens would stand against the most powerful military in the world anyway?
What the FReep are "Community Rights"?
What the FReep are "Community Rights"?
They are whatever the "Community Rights Counsel" SAY they are.
They are the Rights of the Community to take away the rights of the individual.
His dissent wasn't based on the 2nd Amendment - it was based on the powers given to Congress under the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.) Scaling back the legislator's powers under this clause is the most important thing the Supreme Court can do (IMHO.)
good point
They rally for the rights of local communities to demand money from the Federal Govt. and that the Fed. Govt. will supersed the local govt and impose "community rights" on the lower life forms.
supersed=supercede. geez but the graveyard shift is really affecting my spelling.
There's nothing wrong with the Commerce Clause, if it's interpreted as the Framers intended (i.e., preventing a state from enacting laws that would favor companies in their own state to the detriment of competitors in a different state.) In this regard, I'm looking forward to following Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, hoping that the Supreme Court will get an obvious one right.
But I know you were referring to the modern (post 1935) interpretation of the Commerce Clause. There are posters here who are fine with this, and it's a bit sad. Sad that someone can be so delusional to believe that they are conservative while fully supporting the largest Federal usurpation of State power ever. Statism is hardly conservative.
I am also.
If we can get a solid bloc on the Supreme Court willing to read the Second Amendment and defend it, well, maybe we can finally see the GCA and the NFA thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment.
I hadn't considered this as even a possibility, but with Judge Alito's very encouraging appearance thus far, well, this could be good, very good. And if Justice Stevens does step down, then with the next nominee from President Bush we could see a Supreme Court that truly will have a historic opportunity to correct some of the waywardness of the last 70 years.
It surprises you that not everyone hates that portion of our Constitution as much as tpaine does?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.