Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk
He obviously knows more about the Constitution than you... The interstate commerce clause was never about "banning" anything between states, but allowing free trade between the states.

I suppose you are equally sanguine about the FedGov using the Interstate Commerce clause to prohibit certain classes of firearms as well? Or that the eminent domain rulings were just peachy as well?

Buy a clue...

33 posted on 05/12/2007 8:35:52 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, in relevant part: "The Congress shall have the Power.....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the Several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The Interstate Commerce Clause requires neither the allowance nor the prohibition of interstate commerce but empowers Congress to regulate the same. Congress is free not to regulate, free to regulate, free to prohibit or free to require such commerce as it sees fit. Such was the state of the law at the outset before the Bill of Rights and its Second Amendment prohibited "infringement" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, having been enacted after the original Constitution, would, under ordinary rules of judicial construction be deemed to modify or overturn any conflicting previous provision to the extent necessary to effectuate the policy of the latter enactment.

Kelo vs. New London had nothing whatever to do with Interstate Commerce but instead with whether eminent domain and "takings" clauses could be employed to the benefit of private developers who want to have gummint seize private property for their purposes on the excuse that tax revenues will be augmented. SCOTUS got it wrong as usual since SCOTUS seems incapable of reading the relevant constitutional provisions.

PaleoPaulie is a pseudoconstitutional ignoramus posing as an authority. If paleoPaulie happens to be right on something (like the proverbial stopped watch being right twice a day), he has no idea of how to effectuate the policies he thinks the constitution stands for. PaleoPaulie is a dangerous moonbat on matters of foreign policy and war and nothing vaguely resembling a conservative on either. PaleoPaulie is living history in the sense that he is living proof of why paleowhateverism died a merciful death on December 8, 1941, when the original paleos (Colonel MacCormack, John Flynn, Charles Lindbergh, et al.) threw in the towel, publicly folded their collective America First tent and publicly recognized that they too were at war with Imperial Japan and then with Germany and Italy in the next few days. Of course, they were patriots unlike the craven modern neo-Chamberlains who love nothing more than sticking their heads in the sand and their derrieres in the air and hoping that wishing the baaaaaaad men to just go away will work as foreign policy. If Houston is the target of an effective terrorist attack, I look forward to paleoPaulie groveling on his knees and doing verbal contortions to escape responsibility on behalf of the paleowimps. Maybe he can join with Nancy the Facelift and hold a joint press conference to tell joint lies in that event.

On a matter far more important that paleoPaulie's McGovernite foreign policy heresies, paleoPaulie's defection from the pro-life ranks on the important bills cited further chips away from the legend of paleoPaulie as a pro-lifer or as a conservative. If he will not even defend the innocent babies, why should any conservative be caught dead or alive voting for him.

42 posted on 05/12/2007 11:57:37 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson