Replies

To argue that a legal decision is in error, and to argue with an appeal to the consequences of that decision, is (to me) an argument that the law should be changed.

Mileage my vary, but I have yet to hear someone make an argument against a legal decision and not have that person also advance the argument that the law should be different. Most people seem to think the law should be correct - and thus if they are arguing that a law is in error- they argue that this error should be corrected.

Is anyone here making an argument for the preservation of incorrectly decided law? Would such an argument be logical?

Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.

Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.

The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.

So State law is on topic when you mention it, but off topic when I mention it and you are unable or unwilling to answer a simple question about Constitutional jurisprudence?

To argue that a legal decision is in error, and to argue with an appeal to the consequences of that decision, is (to me) an argument that the law should be changed.

Okay.

Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.

So, they can regulate alcohol, but not drugs?

Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.

And what should happen then? Please be specific, should abortion be abolished nationwide or should the states get to decide?

The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.

I brought up state laws to illustrate the FACT that ALL states had morality laws two centuries ago and NOBODY questioned them. Libertarians seem to think that the Founding Fathers would have been aghast by morality laws and that is simply false.