Another research discovery

It's so much easier for them since Wickard v Filbrun. Now they don't have to bother with a constitutional amendment as they did for alcohol, or the pretense of taxation as NFA '34. Now they simply assert that everything you have or do affects interstate commerce. Local schools affect commerce; growing your own pot or buying a locally-manufactured a gun makes it less likely that you'll purchase from out-of-state; I expect they'll rule any day now that sitting around discussing current events with friends interferes with reading national newspapers or watching network television.

Wow! Was this ever challanged in a Federal court?
Either it never was or it was and lost. Isn't it kind of critical which?

Was what challenged? Wickard v Filburn was a US Supreme Court decision. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942) In terms of its distortion of the Constitution it's far more obscene than Dred Scott ever was.

18 yrs of study of SC and lower decisions has taught me that the SC and lower courts always screw the People and axpand the government.

Logical analysis of the commerce power in relation to the rest of the Constitution and within itself proves all the expansions a lies.

Dishonorable men and women!

Learn this:

1) The SC DOES NOT HAVE the final say. That is a lie taught in government schools.

2) Blackstone says it this way:

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

3) We the People are the ONLY superior to the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to the courts, all of them.

I agree that with very few expcetions, court decisions increase the power of the state and decrease the freedom of the individual. Of course, the same is true for most laws passed by legislatures or executive decrees from the President or governors.

You may think that a law/decision/decree is good, but rarely do they increase your freedom.

axpand = expand

Any government that looks to expand its powers beyond what it traditionally has been limited to will read into a founding document a new meaning that gives them the power they were looking for.

Want to ban guns?
1930's "common defense" could be used.
1980's - 2000's "well regulated Militia" means collective right could be used.

Hopefully we can reexamine the origins of the commerce clause and rein in its usage to give the Federal government general police powers. I know that you and others did the work to promote the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment that was ultimately the basis for Heller and hopefully we can do the same here as well!

The rot set in with Marbury vs. Madison.

So much of our societal infrastructure depends on the wildly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v Filburn that the Supremes do not dare limit it on their own. The most we could hope for would be a persistent refusal to go any farther, and even that would take a substantially different Court than we have now.

I've long thought a Congressional term limits amendment would be the most healthy step we could take as a country at this point. But I'm coming to think that an amendment that explicitly repudiated Wickard by adopting a more restrictive definition of "interstate commerce" would do more good sooner.

Justthisguy,

The rot set in with FDR. He filled the SC with liberals/"progressives" who thought the Constitution was a meaningless anachronism. Without Marbury vs Madison there would have been nothing but a piece of parchment limiting Congress. Any doubts about how that would have turned out?

Lesson:

Who is in charge, the Creator or the created?

Can the subordinate, the created, legitimately define the superior?

Between the Constitution and We the People, which is the Creator and which is the created?

So who's the boss, We the People or the Constitution?

Between the Constitution and the governmental branches, who is the Creator and who is the created?

Again, can the subordinate legitimately decide the meaning of the superior?

The answers are easy and demonstrate the fallaciousness of the entire interpretation process. The government is subordinate to the Constitution and thus cannot legitimately interpret or define even a single word. The Constitution is subordinate to We the People, through our States, and can only be defined by what We the People say the Constitution means.

The current battle is one which should never have needed to be fought except that Jefferson is stated to have said the the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

We the People have failed to learn from the past. We the People have allowed, even greeted, the arrival of our slave masters in government. We the People have been lazy. But We the People have been brain-washed through the governmental school system where history has been rewritten and the truth hidden in a purposeful plan to destroy that for which the Founders fought and died.

Ultimately the Wickard expansion of the CC will
fail when it comes to firearms issues.

Remember, the 2nd A is newer law. The people
that wrote the 2A knew all about the CC and
what it meant. Of all the things on earth
that Congress might wish to regulate via CC,
it cannot argue that the is any way it can
regulate Arms as define in 2A. To do so
would be to argue that either the 2A has no
meaning, or the amendment process as spelled
out in the Constitution itself has no meaning.

2A Arms are the only physical things mentioned
in the Constitution contextually after the CC.
OK, one might argue about slaves, since the
13th does not actually outlaw slavery in all
cases. So there might be another CC exception
in that a person sentenced to slavery as
punishment might be traded in interstate commerce
without regulation.

It will be an interesting fight.

The 2nd should have restricted the tax power, the commerce power, and EVERY other power under (Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant) and the 5th should have made the government prove what just compensation it was providing to the taxpayer under the takings clause. Yep, it's NOT simply real property, it is ALL private property, i.e. the sweat of one's brow. The government cannot tax us with out providing just compensation equivalent to the amount of tax they take. But these folks have forgotten EVERYTHING about English law in order to screw the People. The courts are not on the People's side. They are appointed by the government, paid by the government, and keep their jobs at the will of the government. Any time the government wants it can redefine "good behavior" because the Court has demonstrated that it and the other branches can change the Constitution at will, a living document. Of course those are all lies too.

The CC is NOT about reguilating things, another lie, but about making agreements with government entities. Commerce is NOT things. Commerce is not economy. If the CC were what the lie claims it is, then we wouldn't need the coin money clause, or the patent and copyright clause, etc, etc because they would all be covered under the commerce clause. But then the Court itself said ANY reading of one clause that makes another clause unnecessary, except with amendments, is an improper reading/interpretation of the Constitution!

There is nothing in the second that gives the slightest indication of any allowable controls on Arms by the feds or by the States. Yes, the 2nd always applied to the States, the SC lied in Barron (1833) too. The State governments under their police powers (something the federal government does not constitutionally have excpt in 3 areas) can make laws that relate to murder, etc but NOT to the keeping and bearing of Arms. Again all lies.

FWB, thanks for your comments. My mind is expanded. I mean that.
Harry