We the people have already decided, -- read the BOR's and the 14th for reasonable restrictions on the police powers of State/local/fed governments.
Answer the question if you have the guts.
If you had any guts, you would admit that you have no rebuttal for the fact I've stated; -- our Constitution and its Amendments place reasonable restrictions on the police powers of State/local/fed governments, and the people elected to pass reasonable laws, so as to protect us all.
Five appointed men? -- The USSC is only empowered to have "-- appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. --"
Answer the question. What could you possibly be so scared of?
So if the People aren't to be allowed to decide, and the USSC isn't to be allowed to decide, that would leave just you to be grand master of deciding what's reasonable regulation/prohibition? Hugo Chavez is that you?
The conventional wisdom about the scope of state police powers goes like this:
--- in the early days of the Republic, state regulation was limited by the common law principle of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (you should use what is yours so as not to harm what is others'), implying that legitimate regulation existed only to prevent concrete harm to specified interests.
Sometime around the (previous) turn of the century, the story continues, the principle changed from the old sic utere to the new principle of salus populi est suprema lex (the good of the public is the supreme law), suggesting that states could regulate as they chose so long as they claimed to be working to promote the public safety, welfare, or morality.
Like all such conventional wisdom, this approach is somewhat simplistic.
But it captures a large grain of truth.
The range of activity that courts, and legal scholars, view as within the scope of legitimate regulation is considerably larger than it was previously.
In 1886, for example, influential legal commentator Christopher Tiedeman wrote:
This police power of the State extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the State.
According to the maxim, sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedas, it being of universal application, it must of course be within the range of legislative action to define the mode and manner in which every one may so use his own as not to injure others.
Any law which goes beyond that principle, which undertakes to abolish rights, the exercise of which does not involve an infringement of the rights of others, or to limit the exercise of rights beyond what is necessary to provide for the public welfare and the general security, cannot be included in the police power of the government.
It is a governmental usurpation, and violates the principles of abstract justice, as they have been developed under our republican institutions.
THE EVOLVING POLICE POWER: SOME OBSERVATIONS FOR A NEW CENTURY, David Kopel, Glenn Reynolds
Address:http://www.davekopel.com/CJ/LawRev/EvolvingPolicePower.htm