Soutered Again?

Townhall.com ^ | October 14, 2018 | Gil Gutknecht

[ZULU]

He us a strict construction is. Good enough for me. Be might loose SOME on that theory, but, in the BIG picture, we win with him.
Souther was a freak who never married and lived in his mother’s basement.

[rollo tomasi]

Do you know the difference between positive and negative rights concerning government? Same thing concerning commerce, but reversed under our Constitution. Positive, you actively engage in, negative you do not.

Should someone who does not own a vehicle or even intend to drive be forced to buy car insurance?

If someone wants to pay a fee for service (Including taxes associated with that) out of their own pocket be forced to pay a tax/fined because they don't want to be insured? How about someone who has no intention of even accessing healthcare. Should they be taxed/fined?

Wickard v. Filburn has been regarded as the most expansive assertion of the commerce power in our history. A close second is Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971) , which upheld a statute criminalizing the eminently local activity of loan-sharking. Both of those cases, however, involved commercial activity. To go beyond that, and to say that the failure to grow wheat or the refusal to make loans affects commerce, so that growing and lending can be federally compelled, is to extend federal power to virtually everything. All of us consume food, and when we do so the Federal Government can prescribe what its quality must be and even how much we must pay. But the mere fact that we all consume food and are thus, sooner or later, participants in the “market” for food, does not empower the Government to say when and what we will buy. That is essentially what this Act seeks to do with respect to the purchase of health care. It exceeds federal power. --Scalia

[alloysteel]

The right case gets presented to the court, with the supporting arguments, and Roe vs. Wade could be reversed, not totally ending “abortion on demand”, but sending the decision to make legal legislative determination again on the state level. Therefore, Utah may decide that abortion is to be strictly limited to only provably medically necessary instances, while New York could open up abortion factories on Times Square if they so chose.

Every citizen of the United States has the legal permission, the right, perhaps even the duty, to move to another state if they do not agree with the public policy of the state in which they live.

Poverty is not necessarily a barrier to such migration. Look at the poor who pull up stakes and move to another part of the country for any other of a multitude of reasons.

[CincyRichieRich]

I don’t think so. More than likely pressure from PDJT via other sources or dirt. This is not Bush, McCain, Dole, or some other fake conservative.

[PghBaldy]

I have never expected a fire-breather like Scalia. He will probably be better than Kennedy, so that is good enough for now.

[Electric Graffiti]

“But Marbury vs. Madison is what gave our Constitution a spine”

Huh? So the judiciary is the final arbiter of what is constitutional? That’s judicial tyranny. Why have elections at all? Why have a legislature or executive? Let’s just have the courts run things(See all the injunctions against Trump’s travel bans, etc).

Jefferson was absolutely correct.

[Lazamataz]

He’s good on guns. To me, that’s enough.

For now.

[9YearLurker]

Without it, the list of legislative and judicial abuses would be much the longer. This gives us checks and balances. But yes, the leftists have corrupted it.

[Electric Graffiti]

No it doesn’t. It gives us tyrannical rule by unelected judges.

The legislators and executives have to go through elections...Judges don’t.

[Susquehanna Patriot]

Yes, there are many facets to the justification for abortion from back then that endure to this day. You hit a number of them. It also included in the social-cultural context - sexual expression in the wake of the free love movement. I am sure some of the justices were impacted by it in their decision, even if not written in their decision. They were “men of their times”.

[zeestephen]

I was comfortable with Kavanaugh right up to the last few days before confirmation.

Then....

(1) Bush One and Bush Two started making phone calls supporting Kavanaugh.

(2) RINO Susan Collins and RINO Lindsey Graham started passionately defending Kavanaugh.

(3) Kavanaugh wrote an Op-Ed in the WSJ in which Kavanaugh called center-left Justice Anthony Kennedy “his mentor.”

(4) A secondary concern - almost all of Trump's first 17 federal judge nominees had MASSIVE opposition from Democrat Senators. Since then, most of Trump's judicial nominees have had little or no Democrat opposition.

Bottom Line....

Is Trump better than Hillary Clinton?

Sure.

Can Trump save the American Republic with his current policies on immigration, federal spending ($900 billion debt for FY 2018), and judicial appointments?

No.

[xzins]

I agree. If Congress wanted to they could change abortion and legislate that courts can’t do anything about it

[xzins]

I agree. If a case makes it to scotus that pits life versus personal choice, I think the constitutionalists will use the actual letter of the law and not the penumbras of emanations.

Life is clearly spelled out in the text itself and abortion is not at all mentioned anyplace.

[MNJohnnie]

Another example of why “Conservative Inc” is the most politically impotent and useless political movement in US history.

Instead of cheering on their team for getting a political 1st down, the usual “Conservative” clowns are sitting in the bleachers shooting their political allies in the back for not scoring a touch down every play

Take a LOOK at the current Democrat. It is a binary system. Either Replica or Democrats will control Congress. Instead of wasting time publishing this infantile drivel, how about the gutless whiners get IN the political fight ONE time instead of spending all their time fragging their OWN ALLIES?

[XEHRpa]

> I think Kavanaugh was the right choice for now

I speculate that, in part, he was nominated precisely because his history working with Ken Starr would surely evoke a disproportionately wrathful response from Hillary and her surrogates. Such unhinged insanity was turned against the Democrats, as we have seen.

[foreverfree]

bump

[ZULU]

Well, I agree. There is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding abortion. Ergo,the Tenth Amendment applies.
But I would hope the Federal Government does everything POSSIBLE to toss roadblocks in the path of this abominable

[Georgia Girl 2]

Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned. Likely Thomas is the only justice on the court who would vote for it.

[DrewsMum]

Where did you find judicial review in the constitution?

[grey_whiskers]

GFY troll.