Con Law in a Nutshell: Creating a Parallel Universe

Culture Wars ^ | 1/04 | James G. Bruen, Jr.

[inquest]

With the inclusion of services and manufacturing, that comprises the market.

Manufacturing is not commerce. You're just throwing that in.

[spunkets]

The scope of the food market, hot dogs in particular, is interstate.

" Also, how is the 15 year old AR in my closet involved in interstate commerce once is was sold to the end user?"

Be specific on what law, or rule you are refering to.

"power grab"

The commerce clause exists to give the feds jurisdiction over interstate markets.

[spunkets]

"Manufacturing is not commerce."

It's a commercial enterprise.

[spunkets]

so is farming...

[inquest]

No, it's a precursor to commercial enterprise. Commerce means exchange of goods.

[spunkets]

"a precursor to commercial enterprise."

No such animal.

1commercial \ke-mer-shel\ adjective (1598)
1 a (1) : occupied with or engaged in commerce or work
intended for commerce
(2) : of or relating to commerce
(3) : characteristic of commerce
(4) : suitable, adequate, or prepared for commerce
b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality oxalic acid>
2 a : viewed with regard to profit

(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

[inquest]

You can prove just about anything by quoting different connotations a word might have. Saying that a product is "commercial" could mean, for example, that it's commercially attractive, that people might buy it. Or it could mean that it's intended for commerce. But those are very modern meanings associated with the word. "Commerce" in its most basic sense means actual trading and movement of goods. That's the sense that was used in the Constitution, undisputedly. A "commercial enterprise" - by whatever name you call it - only falls under the heading of interstate commerce when it involves actual commerce between states.

[spunkets]

The words date to the 1500's. There's been no modern changes in meaning. The concept is ancient, see trade. Commerce and commercial enterprise occur within the relm of the market. The market is the focus and object of regulation in the commerse clause. If it's scope is interstate, congress has hte power to regulate it.

[jimt]

That's cute, but let me know the legal basis for marrying property which you control and can therefore it cannot consent. I know you want to marry your llama, but perhaps you could just continue your physical relationship and leave your estate to it in the will. And what about that cute couch you have?

Please point out why the logic used to justify same-sex "marriages" can't be used to justify multiple partner marriages, or any combination of entities.

You can't, and that's the "cute" part.

[breakem]

I was addressing marry animals, which was the point I was responding to when you tried to enlighten me with your control of property argument. You cannot make your case, yet you assume my position and then discount it. Why not make up both sides of the discussion and talk to yourself.

[inquest]

The words date to the 1500's.

That doesn't mean that all the definitions listed in that entry date to the 1500s, let alone that those were the meanings intended by the drafters of the Constitution.

Commerce and commercial enterprise occur within the relm of the market.

Well that's just wonderful. They also occur within the realm of human activity. Therefore Congress has the power to regulate all human activity? That's the logic you're using, unless you're trying to say something other than what you've written.

[jimt]

Apparently you are unwilling to address the main point: any logic used to justify homosexual "marriage" can just as easily be used to justify "marriage" between multiples of any entities.

This was extremely clear in the Canadian decision, which basically boiled down to "because we want to". The rest was sophistry and smokescreen.

[MileHi]

Sorry, I had to leave.

Be specific on what law, or rule you are refering to.

Well, any fed regulation on firearms that have already been sold and are now in private hands. As an example, the feds uses the commerce clause to say that you can't put a bayonet on a post ban AR. How does that affect commerce? It doesn't. The fed uses the commerce clause to grant itself power to regulate virtually everything. I see from your posts that you support that. I don't support that broad definition, it is a toehold to tyranny and a pass to an all powerful central government. I prefer the narrowest definition of any area of federal purview.

[breakem]

Not unwilling to address any point. Not defending or explaining Canada. Not familiar with it.

We started on an ignorant statment you made equating animals and inanimate objects with rational human adults which the law and rational thought says can consentually enter into contracts. You broadened the subject without acknowledging the ignorance of your original remark. I have been on that point since the beginning. It is you who squirms, spins and tries to avoid the issue.

[jimt]

We started on an ignorant statment you made equating animals and inanimate objects with rational human adults which the law and rational thought says can consentually enter into contracts. You broadened the subject without acknowledging the ignorance of your original remark.

All right, let's go back to the beginning.

My remark was (#12) in reply to sartorius' comment "Unless something is done soon, we will see person's marrying their llamas.. "

I said 'It's certainly as legitimate as "gay marriage". The logic used to change the definition of marriage to "two persons" cannot come up with any reasonable justification to restrict it to "two" or to "persons".'

You then derided this by saying animals couldn't give consent, and I replied that as they were property, they didn't need to. (Property is a major subject of contract law - thousands of contracts are written regarding property daily.)

I have been on that point since the beginning. It is you who squirms, spins and tries to avoid the issue.

Could you try addressing what I actually said? Instead of suggestive comments about "your llama" ?

How does the logic used to suddenly legalize "gay marriage" differ from that which would open marriage to "two or more entities" ?

Hint: it doesn't.

[longtermmemmory]

ask to see the young man's wallet. If there is a condom in the wallet, the date is over.

[breakem]

asked and answered, but since you did such a great review, here's a summary homosexuals are human beings that have rational thought. Our government recognizes that adult human being can engage in contracts. Animals and yoiur couch cannot. I have said this 3 or 4 times, What part don't you understand or do you really believe that something you own and which cannot engage in rational thought can have leagl standing to consentually marry something? If so please say more since yours is such a unique position in anglo-american law.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Several decades ago, I took Con Law and struggled with the left-leaning prof teaching the class. On the final exam, the last question was "How has this class changed your life?"

I answered, "It has made me realize the law you teach was not for me."

I got a 'B' yet left law school having discovered there was not much justice in lawyers' law.

[Aquinasfan]

I got a 'B' yet left law school having discovered there was not much justice in lawyers' law.

I have a relative who's the dean of a law school. I asked him if philosophy of law is included as part of the law school curriculum, specifically the natural law as a basis for law. He said that, hopefully, the lawyer will make this induction himself. Is this true?

[jimt]

From the Massachusetts ruling:

Marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”. This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law.

When the activist court chooses to disregard the most obvious and central fact of this definition, namely that it's one man and one woman, why not disregard the limitation of two parties ? Why require those parties to be humman ?

As the activist judges had to be willing blind to thousands of years of definition, there is no logical reason, other than that they know it would enrage many, for these restrictions.

You don''t want me to marry my couch. What right have you to restrict my freedom, and my happiness, that such an arrangement would bring ? After all, marriage to one's choice (according to these activist clowns) is a "basic civil right" ! How dare you try to restrict it only to humans !

The only arguments you've given why homosexuals should be "married" is that a) they're human, b) have feelings, and c) can enter into contracts.

Why can't I marry my mother ? She fits all those criteria ?

Activist judges and their ridiculous twisting of everyday words will ruin us. That was the jist of sartorius' comment, and my statement was a particular example of it.