• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

The commerce clause negates the argument. The academic pedgiree means that TD is aware that he is making a false argument.

Not in the slightest. Look, just because liberals give more weight to a clause in the document rather than the document itself, only goes to show that liberals are intent on destroying the document under its own weight, and have NO intent on following it.

For all constitutional questions under the rule of law the first and last place to stop is the U.S. Constitution, which does include the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – [Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. This clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause; the grouping since Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) has been used increasingly to seize broader and more tyrannical powers by the president, Congress and the courts over We the People. However, many conservative jurists, like Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who are strict constructionists deny that this is the proper application of the Commerce Clause because those limitless powers aren’t specifically mentioned in the 18 enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8.

However, Progressive, imperial presidents like Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09), Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) and FDR (1933-45) hated these constitutionally restrictive measures, seeing them as needless barriers to their revolutionary progressive agendas, so they appointed socialist judges to the Supreme Court who would uphold nakedly fascist laws when Congress began to engage in economic regulation on a national scale. This came to a showdown between constitutionalists and fascists under FDR’s Court Packing Plan in 1937, when the Supreme Court, in fear of losing its power and independence, cowardly gave up its power and independence by caving in to FDR’s liberal fascist demands to use the Commerce Clause to pass his unconstitutional “New Deal” programs, like Social Security, the National Labor Relation Board, Agricultural Adjustment Act, Securities and Exchange Commission and the welfare state. This treachery continued in Congress and the courts unabated for 60 years until the U.S. v. Lopez decision of 1995 when the Rehnquist Court resurrected the dormant Commerce Clause decisions to return a measure of power back to the states and to the people while limiting Congress’ regulation monopoly power over all economic activity.

Liberal fascists for over 100 years have corrupted the 16 simple words of the Commerce Clause the framers used to help define the balance of power between the federal government and the states and the balance of power between the two elected branches of the federal government and the Judiciary. If Obamacare passes constitutional scrutiny in all 50 states under the federal mandate, the federal government will have an illegitimate, unlimited right to have direct control over every aspect of American life from cradle to grave. That’s not freedom, that’s slavery – and the Democratic Party leaders are the slavemasters.

Liberal fascism and the Commerce Clause


j-mac
 
Requiring background checks for ALL gun show sales might 'solve' .04% of the actual problem. With 99.6% of a problem still existing, who in their right mind thinks they have actually DONE anything about gun crimes or gun violence or the accessibility of firearms? And of those that ARE actually stupid enough to think that makes a difference...are they willing to go on record going after criminals and standing for mandatory minimum sentencing for criminals using firearms in the commission of a violent crime? Because. hey...if not...talk about hypocrites...
 
Not in the slightest. Look, just because liberals give more weight to a clause in the document rather than the document itself, only goes to show that liberals are intent on destroying the document under its own weight, and have NO intent on following it.
j-mac

It is Supreme Court precedent -- the law of the land -- not "liberal" doctrine.
 
Requiring background checks for ALL gun show sales might 'solve' .04% of the actual problem....

no one should be able to buy a gun without first making sure they have the legal right to buy a gun. its simply common sense.

we need to find a way to ensure that everyone who buys a gun, has the legal right to do so.
 
Requiring background checks for ALL gun show sales might 'solve' .04% of the actual problem. With 99.6% of a problem still existing, who in their right mind thinks they have actually DONE anything about gun crimes or gun violence or the accessibility of firearms? And of those that ARE actually stupid enough to think that makes a difference...are they willing to go on record going after criminals and standing for mandatory minimum sentencing for criminals using firearms in the commission of a violent crime? Because. hey...if not...talk about hypocrites...

You are pulling figures out of your arse. As for mandatory minimum sentences, I would absolutely support them for anyone using a gun in aid of committing a felony.
 
It is Supreme Court precedent -- the law of the land -- not "liberal" doctrine.


No, at least be honest about it...It is liberal doctrine. The SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make law. Show me in the Constitution where they do.

j-mac
 
no one should be able to buy a gun without first making sure they have the legal right to buy a gun. its simply common sense.

we need to find a way to ensure that everyone who buys a gun, has the legal right to do so.

Who grants "rights"?

j-mac
 
No, at least be honest about it...It is liberal doctrine. The SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make law. Show me in the Constitution where they do.

j-mac

Decisions of the Supreme Court can sometimes be seen as creating new law. Such as if the SCOTUS strikes down laws banning gay marriage.
 
No, at least be honest about it...It is liberal doctrine. The SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make law. Show me in the Constitution where they do.

j-mac

The SC obviously has the authority, and the duty, to interpret the constitution, and that is why we have the commerce clause analysis that we do.
 
Decisions of the Supreme Court can sometimes be seen as creating new law. Such as if the SCOTUS strikes down laws banning gay marriage.

Please show me in Article 3 where the court retains that power.


j-mac
 
The SC obviously has the authority, and the duty, to interpret the constitution, and that is why we have the commerce clause analysis that we do.

Please show me in Article 3 where that is.

j-mac
 
Does the dormant commerce clause ring any bells for you? Have you actually passed a bar exam?

. The tenth amendment is hated by the socialist left but the FDR administration used the commerce clause dishonestly

why do you ask such moronic questions?
 
Please show me in Article 3 where the court retains that power.


j-mac

"Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
 
The commerce clause negates the argument. The academic pedgiree means that TD is aware that he is making a false argument.

wrong, I do know the federal government acts in many areas that the constitution did not grant it the power to do.
 
. The tenth amendment is hated by the socialist left but the FDR administration used the commerce clause dishonestly

why do you ask such moronic questions?

I didn't realize that the Roosevelt administration adjudicated constitutional law questions. How interesting.
 
"Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Ok, great, you can copy and paste the article I asked for. Now show me where the court has as you term it, the "authority"...


j-mac
 
It isn't "liberals" that apply the commerce clause that way; it is nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent that applies the commerce clause that way.

yeah the FDR court-after the court packing scheme was suggested, ignored 100+ years of precedent and started rubber stamping that idiocy

no one can honestly claim that the commerce clause was intended to allow congress to regulate small arms
 
No, I absolutely did. I only ask that you show me where in Article 3 the court retains that power. If you can't that is fine.


j-mac

I didn't say that they have the formal power to make new laws. But infact, when they strike down one law, they sometimes in effect create a new one.

if SCOTUS strikes down a gay-marriage ban in California, they might indeed be in effect, saying that gay marriage is legal throughout the entire country.

get it?
 
I didn't realize that the Roosevelt administration adjudicated constitutional law questions. How interesting.

more dishonesty. Contrarian idiocy. the FDR administration decided that the commerce clause could be used to regulate firearms in the 1934 NFA act after its own AG said an outright ban on machine guns would violate the second amendment. SO regulating machine guns was based on a tax and the commerce Clause.

Ad I didn't say the ADMINISTRATION ADJUDICATED as you claim
 
yeah the FDR court-after the court packing scheme was suggested, ignored 100+ years of precedent and started rubber stamping that idiocy

no one can honestly claim that the commerce clause was intended to allow congress to regulate small arms

Ah, so it was actually the Supreme Court, and every subsequent Supreme Court, that came up with the commerce clause analysis -- NOT the Roosevelt administration! This is fascinating stuff.
 
I didn't say that they have the formal power to make new laws. But infact, when they strike down one law, they sometimes in effect create a new one.

if SCOTUS strikes down a gay-marriage ban in California, they might indeed be in effect, saying that gay marriage is legal throughout the entire country.

get it?


Oh, I do get it....Do you get that this is judicial activism, and extra constitutional as to the courts purpose?

j-mac
 
if that gun is manufactured in Idaho and shipped to Illinois for sale, Congress indeed has the power to regulate it.

and that is based on what power given the congress in the constitution as intended?

and merely moving in interstate commerce is not the same as affecting it

but once I own that gun it no longer is affecting interstate commerce if I decided to sell it to someone who also lives in ohio. a
 
Back
Top Bottom