Replies

This is one method of attack on the control types thinking I never see. If it has been settled for their 'numerous decades' they are admitting that it has been changed from what it originally meant. So it boils down to six decades of violating the right the admendment is there to protect.

I used it once in an argument with someone here over the Commerce Clause. They argued that FDR's interpretation was "well settled law" and that under the principle of stare decisis (precedence) we should accept it.

I pointed out that it was "well settled law" for 150 years before FDR screwed with it, and that stare decisis could just as easily be applied to arguments for changing it back. I never did get a reply after that.