Interesting mandatory sentencing case

The question here is whether Congress and the feds can make anything a crime that is NOT directly and specifically delegated as a power to Congress. Funny how throughout the 19th century, the Court recognized that the Police Power was left to the states. Then magically, I know judges all have crystal balls (pun intended) and therefore know better than the people, the feds had police power. Interestingly, they often cite the necessary and proper clause which in reality is a limiting clause, not an expansion of power. Stupid judges, kicks are for kids!

Since Article I, Section 8 delegates the power to Congress to punish certain actions, a proper understanding of the Constitiution would be that in all other cases, the power was withheld and Congress cannot, in those cases, punish the actions. That is the central concpet of our system of delegated powers.

And I still have trouble finding the amendment of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to ban "stuff", equivalent to the 18th. If the 18th was necessary to ban booze, where are the required amendments to ban any other thing? It's not the commerce clause because the commerce clause was in effect when the 18th was added and the fact that the 18th was added proves that the commerce clause DOES NOT extend to those objects. Of course, unless the Constitution is a "living" document and changes with the whim but then why did those stupid old men who wrote the thing waste all that time and paper adding in such a complex amendment process when all the government had to do was "reinterpret"?

Tiochfaidh ar la!

"Tiochfaidh ar la!
Posted by: fwb at April 29, 2009 11:42 AM"

Ok, after all this time, I've finally broken down.

What the hell does "Tiochfaidh ar la!" mean and in what language?!

FWB - IF the plaintiff had argued that the law was outside the powers of Congress, the Supreme Court might have considered that. As it was, he was just arguing that the sentencing enhancement for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence was not supposed to apply to an accidental discharge, so that was the only issue addressed by the Supreme Court. If he HAD tried to make that claim, I suspect the government would have argued that since it was a Federally-insured bank, the Feds still had jurisdiction over crimes committed there...

Irish for "our day will come," according to Wikipedia.

Alan:

Tiochfaidh ar la! - Our day will come! - Irish

Pronounced - Chucky ar la

James: Understood. In our system the judges only look at what is brought up rather than make a REAL determination. Too bad. They need honor.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

FWB

federally insured bank - Under what delegated power does Congress have authority to insure banks?

It's not the commerce clause.

It's not the coin money clause.

And there ain't any implied powers which is proven multiple times using the delegated powers. Congress has no constitutional authority to be involved in banking, that power was left to the states.

Only people who haven't properly studied the Constitution still believe in implied powers.

"Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam"

I suppose it might be too much nuance to point out to the USSC that there are no Accidental Discharges, only Negligent Discharges.
Put your booger picker on the bang switch when you shouldn't, and sometimes it activates when you don't want it to.

"Only people who haven't properly studied the Constitution still believe in implied powers."

Unfortunately those seem to be the ones who've been running the government for the past century or more. The 18th Amendment was a momentary departure from the party line, similar to the decision in United States v. Lopez, which now seems to be ignored even by its authors.

Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde.

Ken:

Excellent quote!!!!

FWB