This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 06/15/2023 12:20:01 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/progressive-judge-says-commerce-clause-overrides-the-bill-of-rights/#ixzz84jT40d00 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
U.S.A. — At least one judge in the Third Circuit believes the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion. Four judges dissented.
One of those was Judge Janet Richards Roth, appointed to the Third Circuit by George H. W. Bush in 1991. She was born in 1935 and started her governmental career working as a typist and administrative assistant in the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State, in 1956. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 1965. Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006. She is a few days short of her 88th birthday (June 16).
Judge Roth makes a strong case, based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. She gives the usual litany of Progressive “arguments”: Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has to have more power than the Bill of Rights allows. That was then. This is now. Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit P. 96 of 107 :
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
2A
“ She is a few days short of her 88th birthday (June 16).”
Completely senile and crazed like a libtard
“Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights.”
I suppose we could say in return, “Ya know that pesky ‘innocent until proven guilty thing’, and the ‘no vigilante’ thing, well, that’s changed since we made this Christian nation.”
That’s the liberal argument for how they intend to create socialism. Make the Commerce Clause supreme.
Dissenter simply shows that anyone claiming that judges in general aren’t politically bound to the party that nominated them is full of crap.
This moron simply display her complete fealty to liberals/commies/pick your own lefty moniker.
affirmative action appointment back in 1991 ...
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
The irony being, free and open commerce is Capitalism... The one thing Communist/Progressives hate...
Commerce Clause abuse is behind 99.9% of the expansion of the FedGov beyond its rightful limits.
What's that go to do with 2A and the Bill of Rights?
She was appointed by “read my lips” Bush... Literally a poster boy for RINO’s...
Guns and ammo are bought and sold in the US.
That is literally the crux of it.
EVERYTHING the ATF has ever done has been pinned to that one clause. Now that the ATF was moved from Revenue over to Justice... They SHOULD have lost even that marginal claim to justified existence.
Our entire government needs to be flushed and rebuilt from scratch.
Yeah. Stupid.
The first eight amendments limit the Federal Government. They have no legitimacy against the authority of the states.
Several Bush picks have been questionable to say the least.
I certainly wouldn’t have guessed this pick was from a Republican, RINO or not.
Back to the drawing board I suppose!
I would think that an amendment would supersede whatever preceded it. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
I am not an 88-year-old Federal Judge, but since the Bill of Rights were ratified after the Constitution itself, how can a part of the original Constitution ‘override’ an amendment to the document. The Amendments by definition override the original, not the other way round.
BS
I would think that an amendment would supersede whatever preceded it. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
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.