Posted on 11/03/2005 2:24:08 PM PST by inquest
There's a new poll up on the side. Do you think the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution authorizes federal laws against narcotics and firearms? Now lest everyone forget, this isn't asking whether you personally agree with such laws. It's about whether your honest reading of the Constitution can justify them.
While you're thinking it over, it might help to reflect on what James Madison had to say about federal power over interstate commerce:
Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.I'll be looking forward to your comments.
On a conservative site, you try to make the argument that the 9th Circuit is a legitimate source of constitutional reasoning?
You've gone off the deep end. The quote that you provide is utter nonsense and any reading of any literature other than from the Brady Bunch will clearly show it as such.
We are not 'afforded' rights. Our rights are inherent and ours from birth. The BoR is a reminder to government to mess with them.
Sheesh. Haven't you learned anything in all the time that you've been here?
Not at all. The discussion concerned the predicted end result if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the second amendment today.
I say that, based on lower federal court rulings (including the very vocal 9th Circuit), the U.S. Supreme Court would favor the collective rights interpretation. If you disagree, I'd like to hear why.
"We are not 'afforded' rights. Our rights are inherent and ours from birth."
Sure. And as a society we decide which of those rights we will protect, and to what extent. Not all rights are protected -- but you knew that.
"Sheesh. Haven't you learned anything in all the time that you've been here? "
Me? Yes. You?
The discussion to which your comment pertained was with me, and I can assure you I was making no such predictions about how the court would rule, nor was that the subject of discussion on this thread. Only you brought up this "prediction" business, for reasons known only to you. The issue under discussion is what the Constitution actually requires.
" --- as a society we decide which of those rights we will protect, and to what extent. Not all rights are protected -- but you knew that.
The discussion concerned the predicted end result if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the second amendment today.
I say that, based on lower federal court rulings (including the very vocal 9th Circuit), the U.S. Supreme Court would favor the collective rights interpretation. --"
Until you 'predicted' so, [in your effort to justify existing gun prohibitions] this discussion was not overly concerned with the U.S. Supreme Court making a definitive ruling on the second amendment in the near future.
- They are terrified to do so, -- but you knew that.
Your argument that the 9th Circuit is a legitimate source of constitutional reasoning is yet another of your amusing attempts to take your foot out of your own mouth..
It bears repeating -- "Haven't you learned anything in all the time that you've been here?"
Have a Happy Hangover.
Mojave toasts, inanely:
Have a Happy Hangover.
Sure thing kiddo. -- Sounds like you got a start on all of us, and the booze is talking..
Alzheimer's.
The revisionism never ends.
Replies
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1551270/replies?c=452
The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition (Op-Ed)
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650191/posts?page=254
More revisionism. It never ends.
I won't ask for your imaginary source.
You're in full retreat.
Huh? Retreat from what? Are you still saying the Supreme Court essentially never heard of Stewart, and Stewart is unrelated to Raich? The Supremes and everyone else have now said the issues in the two cases are the same.
2. Are you still saying the Supreme Court essentially never heard of Stewart, and Stewart is unrelated to Raich?
Strawman.
Don't trip running away from your original argument.
What precisely are the human rights that must be protected?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742193/posts
A counter to the theory that: '-- Not all rights are protected; -- as a society we decide which of those rights we will protect, and to what extent. --'
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.