Having just read his so-called “explanation”, and despite the fact I am NOT a lawyer (thank God), I have to say that represents some of the most convoluted, twisted, tortured “logic” I’ve seen in a long, long time.
What an idiot.
Thank God for lawyers - Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are lawyers. So is Mark Levin, and I could go on.
Lawyers are like neighbors, teachers, soldiers and relatives - some are jerks and some are gems.
Lord knows, when the government comes after you, you will want a lawyer to help you.
If you like freedom, thank a lawyer and a vet.
You are right about Breyer’s “logic”. Sadly, he gets it from the McCullouch v. Maryland case. It is the “logic” in that case interpreting “necessary and proper” that has gotten us where we are in Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The proof of that is the Wickard case. If you can stomach it, even as a non-lawyer, please try to read those cases, at least the sections discussing “necessary and proper.” if you can read the dissents you’ll pretty much see where both sides are going.
I won’t be shocked either way, sadly.
Several years ago Breyer told a captive audience of Law School students that is No way we can determine what the intent of the Founders was when they wrote and ratified the
Constitution and Bill of Rights. He said his learned partners on the Bench were wrong to assume that history or anything else teaches us anything about how these men would decide a thing today.(I’ve got something published by Dr. D.James Kennedy that points directly to that talk-in my stuff)
This episode has revealed to me the difference between The Constitution and Constitutional law:
The Constitution: A carefully crafted document, written by patriots, who risked their lives, liberty and sacred honor, warning us to be wary of the excesses of government.
Constitutional law: The 230+ year history of self-important nitwits with personal agendas telling us that the plain language of the Constitution means something else entirely.