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

To: Talisker

See my post 41. Even if it was interstate (rather than intrastate) commerce, it wouldn’t be constitutionally under federal jurisdiction.


43 posted on 09/23/2009 7:49:08 PM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: djsherin; dov
Even if it was interstate (rather than intrastate) commerce, it wouldn’t be constitutionally under federal jurisdiction.

You're exactly right, djsherin. As well, "regulated" within the 2nd Amendment meant a similiar thing - to keep operating smoothly (i.e. without obstructions and with maximum efficiency).

BUT, if you view the Commerce clause from within the administrative jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, then the meaning of the word "regulate" means "administratively control through select limitations." And then if you take that concept and expand it as much as possible... you get the basis for almost all the Federal overreach we have today, where the Feds claim absolutely everything in utter reversal of Original Intent. Justice Thomas pointed that out (but I don't have the quote handy).

60 posted on 09/23/2009 7:59:37 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | 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