LA Times shows its understanding and impartiality
Here's its report on the oral argument in the Hayes case. All the Court is trying to do is figure out what Congress meant when it defined domestic violence offense. Does that mean the elements of the underlying misdemeanor must be (1) use or threat of force (2) against a household member, or just (1) misdemeanor use or threat of force? (I.e., the household member can be proven in the federal prosecution).
Domestic violence abusers could get gun rights
The Supreme Court will decide whether people convicted of misdemeanor assault against their spouses or partners should have their 2nd Amendment rights restored because of a flaw in federal law.
First para: " Thousands convicted of a misdemeanor for threatening or assaulting a spouse or girlfriend could once again own guns because of a flaw in the federal law."
Story goes on to quote extensively from the government attorney's argument, and not a word from the other side. And no analysis of what the legal issue was.
Hat tip to Ambiguous Ambigue
I expect that if this case goes against the government, the new Obama regime will quickly make some changes...
Posted by: Jim at November 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Please point out the delegation of power that permits Congress to hold police power and to pass legislation making amn individual action such as DV a federal crime.
Please do not use "commerce clause" since that clause is textually limited to actions of 1) foreign nations, 2) States, and 3) indian Tribes and that clause explicitly omits "People".
And once again RIGHTS come from God and are inalienable. If it comes from the government or can be abridged, infringed, or otherwise modified, it is a privilege or immunity.
Posted by: FWB at November 11, 2008 01:32 PM
"Please do not use "commerce clause" since that clause is textually limited to actions of 1) foreign nations, 2) States, and 3) indian Tribes and that clause explicitly omits "People".
Well spoken my friend!
Posted by: Wesley at November 11, 2008 03:43 PM
The modern interpretation of Commerce Clause, Lopez notwithstanding, seems to be that people are free to travel from state to state and purchase, sell and/or consume in different states. Therefore, anything that a person might possess, purchase, sell or do affects interstate commerce and may be regulated, mandated or prohibited as Congress sees fit.
Posted by: Ken at November 11, 2008 06:06 PM
What about the CBS -New York Times poll that had Obama up by 16 the same night he won by only 6%.
The media has lost all credibility.
Our Democracy is in peril because of it
and also due to the happy ignorance of the
typical American voter.
Posted by: Marcus Poulin at November 12, 2008 05:00 AM
Please show me the clause anything that "affects" interstate commerce in the Constitution. For that matter, show me the term "interstate commerce". Anyone with a dram of knowledge on the Commerce clause knows that the Framers were placing the ability in Congress to override State passed laws that caused problems for other State, no more no less. Even the text covers the same point. Marshall was an idiot when he stated "among" contemplated more than between. The word among was used because there were more than two state and between is a term limited to two. The Frame's use was merely grammatical, not some sneaky deep meaning term that only judges with tea leaves or crystal balls could see. Marshall was a power hungry freak who did everything he could to raise the level of power the court held. He was pissed because the Court is less powerful than Congress (See Congress' authority to control the courts in Article III).
The claim that the commerce clause covers anything that is transported in cross state lines commerce is a magical and imaginary claim pulled from the darkest recesses of someone's arse. EVERY power in the Constitution is an extremely narrow power explicitly restricted to the exact words.
If this is not a correct reading, explain why Congress' power to coin money did not include the power to set its value and did not include the power to punish counterfeiting.
Explain why the power to declare war did not include the power "to raise armies" or "to provide and maintain a navy" or to spend money for the "common Defence".
The judges DO NOT have a corner on reading the Constitution. Most decisions made are contrary to what the simple text states. Judges have forgotten their place. Their place was stated succinctly by Blackstone:
For, whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.
Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6
To better understand who's the boss, consider fundamental law theory or the Creator/created relationship. Who is the superior, the Creator or the created? The Creator is superior to the created (creation). Who is/are the Creator of the Constitution? We the People and the Constitution is our creation. Being our creation, the Constitution is subordinate to We the People. The Constitution next creates the government and its branches. Thus the Constitution is superior to each of the branches and every member of those branches. Subordinates do not have the authority to define the superior, i.e. the courts cannot interpret the Constitution. That is one of the first lies we were taught. The Constitution is the written rules that We the People make for those we choose to work for us. We hire them as oru public servants. None of them are our superiors and none of them are our leaders. The use of the term leader is a somewhat modern invention concerning our elected officials. In my childhood, they were ALWAYS referred to as public servants. We the People are the boss. Our rules, the Constitution, are their boss. If an authority or power is not delegated therein, it is retained by the People. Even at the state level, the People have to explicitly transfer authority to the state government through the state constitution.
Men will hold to old truths more readily than they will accept new truths. Get out of your box. Study the original Constitutional writings of Story, Rawle, Cooley, Tucker, etc. What most of us think we know wbout our government and our Constitution are BS invented by a bunch of thugs in black robes.
Posted by: fwb at November 12, 2008 09:39 AM
That was excellent, FWB.
Posted by: Mack at November 12, 2008 03:10 PM