• 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!

Gamble v. U.S.; a Pending SCOTUS Case where the Ruling Might Let Manafort Off the Hook.

much of the war on drugs and gun control laws stand contrary to that doctrine noted in Cruikshank

how do you think the court will rule?

Well, if that's the case, then it should be a relatively simple matter to challenge those laws in the courts and get them struck down, shouldn't it?

As far as the Gamble case goes, though, given the lengthy stare decisis supporting the Separate Sovereigns doctrine, I can't even figure out why the Supreme Court even saw fit to hear this case. Chief Justice Fuller declared Separate Sovereigns to be "settled law" as far back as the 1898 Crossley decision. It should be about as open-and-shut a matter as the Court is likely to hear this term.
 
Well, if that's the case, then it should be a relatively simple matter to challenge those laws in the courts and get them struck down, shouldn't it?

As far as the Gamble case goes, though, given the lengthy stare decisis supporting the Separate Sovereigns doctrine, I can't even figure out why the Supreme Court even saw fit to hear this case. Chief Justice Fuller declared Separate Sovereigns to be "settled law" as far back as the 1898 Crossley decision. It should be about as open-and-shut a matter as the Court is likely to hear this term.

I wish the court was as obedient to stare decisis back in the 30s. If that was the case, crap like the New Deal and the National Firearms Act and "Wickard V Filburn" never would have happened. The FDR lapdogs completely rejected 140 years of precedent.
 
I wish the court was as obedient to stare decisis back in the 30s. If that was the case, crap like the New Deal and the National Firearms Act and "Wickard V Filburn" never would have happened. The FDR lapdogs completely rejected 140 years of precedent.

What are you talking about?? The Supreme Court has historically acknowledged the sweeping powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause going back to Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824). If there was any historical anomaly regarding the Court's treatment of the Commerce Clause, it occurred during the Lochner Era of conservative activism.
 
What are you talking about?? The Supreme Court has historically acknowledged the sweeping powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause going back to Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824). If there was any historical anomaly regarding the Court's treatment of the Commerce Clause, it occurred during the Lochner Era of conservative activism.

why was so much of the New Deal struck down before FDR *****whipped the court with the bravado he obtained with his big with in 36 and his court packing threats? Remind me when the Supreme court held that the commerce clause was interpreted to give congress power over individual citizens acting within their own sovereign states. Do you have a law degree and what area of law do you practice in?
 
why was so much of the New Deal struck down before FDR *****whipped the court with the bravado he obtained with his big with in 36 and his court packing threats? Remind me when the Supreme court held that the commerce clause was interpreted to give congress power over individual citizens acting within their own sovereign states. Do you have a law degree and what area of law do you practice in?

I already told you... those rulings occurred at the tail end of the Lochner era (1897-1937), when conservative judicial activism ran amuck.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)

"It is the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." --- Chief Justice John Marshall
 
I already told you... those rulings occurred at the tail end of the Lochner era (1897-1937), when conservative judicial activism ran amuck.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)

"It is the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." --- Chief Justice John Marshall

so do you believe that the commerce clause was intended to allow federal gun control

or to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own property for his own use?
 
so do you believe that the commerce clause was intended to allow federal gun control

or to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own property for his own use?

I'll refer you to the Chief Justice's statement in Gibbons v. Ogden. Congressional power to regulate commerce, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to it's utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.
 
I'll refer you to the Chief Justice's statement in Gibbons v. Ogden. Congressional power to regulate commerce, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to it's utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.

such as the tenth amendment and the second?
 
such as the tenth amendment and the second?

The Tenth Amendment isn't applicable, as regulation of commerce is delegated to Congress. Similarly, the power to regulate commerce in the purchase of firearms has no bearing on the keeping and bearing of arms once they have been legally purchased.
 
The Tenth Amendment isn't applicable, as regulation of commerce is delegated to Congress. Similarly, the power to regulate commerce in the purchase of firearms has no bearing on the keeping and bearing of arms once they have been legally purchased.

you keep dodging the question. The commerce clause was used as an excuse for de facto bans on automatic weapons in the 1930s.
 
you keep dodging the question. The commerce clause was used as an excuse for de facto bans on automatic weapons in the 1930s.

I'm not dodging anything. It seems pretty obvious to me that Congress has substantial powers granted to it by the Constitution to regulate commerce. I'm not sure what is so hard for you to grasp about that simple fact.
 
I'm not dodging anything. It seems pretty obvious to me that Congress has substantial powers granted to it by the Constitution to regulate commerce. I'm not sure what is so hard for you to grasp about that simple fact.

so how does congress get the power to tell someone in Ohio they cannot make a suppressor for their own personal use?

you apparently are one of those posters who basically believe that "commerce" means just about everything. Do you think the founders would have supported the federal government telling a gunsmith in Ohio he couldn't make a gun and sell it to another Ohio citizen?
 
so how does congress get the power to tell someone in Ohio they cannot make a suppressor for their own personal use?

you apparently are one of those posters who basically believe that "commerce" means just about everything. Do you think the founders would have supported the federal government telling a gunsmith in Ohio he couldn't make a gun and sell it to another Ohio citizen?

:yawn:

I'll tell you what... why don't you get back to me when you're ready to stop pulling random anecdotes out of the air and to start making a coherent, fact-based argument? Because this is boring the crap out of me.
 
:yawn:

I'll tell you what... why don't you get back to me when you're ready to stop pulling random anecdotes out of the air and to start making a coherent, fact-based argument? Because this is boring the crap out of me.

you never did answer whether you have a law license but the fact is-the FDR administration -for the first time-interpreted the commerce clause as giving congress power over individuals operating in their own sovereign states. I cannot read "commerce among the states" as applying to individuals. And I real "shall not be infringed" as preventing interference with people being able to keep (ie obtain and possess) and bear arms. and I believe this current court will start expanding what the USSC did in the LOPEZ decision.
 
you never did answer whether you have a law license but the fact is-the FDR administration -for the first time-interpreted the commerce clause as giving congress power over individuals operating in their own sovereign states. I cannot read "commerce among the states" as applying to individuals. And I real "shall not be infringed" as preventing interference with people being able to keep (ie obtain and possess) and bear arms. and I believe this current court will start expanding what the USSC did in the LOPEZ decision.

It's a free country, Turtle... you can believe whatever you want. Making an effective case to support your beliefs, however, is a different matter entirely.
 
It's a free country, Turtle... you can believe whatever you want. Making an effective case to support your beliefs, however, is a different matter entirely.

exactly, and you have yet to make an effective case
 
exactly, and you have yet to make an effective case

I'm not the one trying to re-interpret the Constitution. I'm also not the one who seems to think history somehow stopped between the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and FDR's initiation of the New Deal in 1933.
 
I'm not the one trying to re-interpret the Constitution. I'm also not the one who seems to think history somehow stopped between the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and FDR's initiation of the New Deal in 1933.

was FDR's claim that the Commerce Clause essentially gave congress any power it decreed it had, a proper interpretation?
 
That wasn't FDR's claim... it was Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in 1824.

that's not true given all the new deal legislation that was struck done in the early days of the FDR administration
 
Then I suggest you read his opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824).

I did. I taught it in law school. Did you forget that case was prior to the several cases in the 1934 era that struck down New Deal legislation.
 
I did. I taught it in law school. Did you forget that case was prior to the several cases in the 1934 era that struck down New Deal legislation.

Due primarily to an activist Lochner-era Supreme Court misusing substantive due process. I'll refer you to pretty much any of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' relevant dissents during the time period.
 
Due primarily to an activist Lochner-era Supreme Court misusing substantive due process. I'll refer you to pretty much any of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' relevant dissents during the time period.

LOL that is hilarious. Its more likely that the court in question actually took the tenth amendment seriously.
 
Back
Top Bottom