Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Announced presidential candidate NM Governor Richardson is pro-gun rights. As governor of NM he has to be pro-gun or face the NM voters with a big strike against him.
Mark
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Also US v Morrison
You wouldn't know a Constitutional position if it walked up to you, introduced itself, and smacked your dumb behind silly.
L
"Second Amendment's protections...do not extend to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
By her logic then the Amendment (I forget the number) that provides for an income tax should also not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. Oh joy, oh joy, DC residents should demand to get all the federal taxes they have paid over the years returned. Now they no longer have to be one of the highest taxed jurisdictions in the country!!!
"This isn't scrappleface is it??"
No, it is not. The metropolitan DC TV new has been reporting it all day. Not in the Washington Post for Friday. Will look on Saturday.
You, sir, appear to be nothing more than a troll. I thought it an extreme assessment when others were saying it earlier, but now I see that they're right. It's my fault for falling for your bait once again, but that's the end of that. Have fun doing what you do.
No quote, naturally.
The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Nope. The 2nd Amendment was a declaratory restriction on federal powers, the 16th Amendment extended federal powers.
But I figured if I just gave our Statist friend RP a link it would occupy him elsewhere for a while.
L
Glad you enjoyed being refuted.
Just zip back up the thread and find it. Feel free to move your lips if you like.
He said that Congress can regulate 'anything' in the name of Interstate Commerce.
SCOTUS disagreed.
Next time try actually reading what was said in the thread. It may help prevent you from looking the fool. Nothing could prevent that entirely of course, but help it may.
L
He said that the government can regulate the interstate commerce. The court said that the possession of a gun in a local school zone was NOT an economic activity and did NOT have substantial effect on interstate commerce.
I read through your misrepresentation a mile away.
Well, what would really be helpful about her opinion would be that nobody in DC, including the media and the politicians, have a First Amendment right. :)
But seriously, I wonder if it occurred to her that, since there is a Circuit Court of Appeal in and for D.C.. and its purpose is in large part to decide constitutional issues for D.C., that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the people within the jurisdiction of her court. If not, there would be no need for her court, now would there? That aspect of her opinion is actually comical.
For those who prefer html to pdf, see Parker v. D.C.
Freepmail me with errors if you'd like. I'll be doing more cleanup on it tomorrow.
Z
English is obviously not your strong suit. Do take your time with this.
My position is the constitutional position -- the government can regulate the interstate commerce of everything.
552 posted on 03/09/2007 4:37:27 PM CST by robertpaulsen
SCOTUS disagreed. From US v Morrison: "The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority."
Congress can not regulate the interstate commerce of 'everything'. They, and apparently you, like to think they can. But the Court said it must directly (it's a small word so you shouldn't have much trouble looking it up) affect interstate commerce.
Now off with you or I shall taunt you again.
L
P.S. Your father smelled of elderberries.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
...and how said it is that we are so excited to hear the same "news" that our forefathers recited to us over two-hundred years ago.
...the government can regulate the interstate commerce of everything...The court said that the possession of a gun in a local school zone was NOT an economic activity and did NOT have substantial effect on interstate commerce. The possession of the firearm was NOT deemed to be interstate commerce.
Poor you.
And one might wonder what she and her brethren are doing there in the first place if the constitution doesn't apply to D.C., lol!
It didn't take them long to comment on the Libby decision.
yitbos
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.