Politics
Out of context: Reply #8899
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
Typical rightwing bullshit. First of all, the wide use of the Commerce Clause didn't start under the New Deal, although you guys love to hate on FDR for decades now, and it didn't start in the Supreme Court..you guys love to dump on them thar "activist judges" don't you. No, it started in the 1824 (Gibbons v. Ogden) and then later the wider interpretation happened in the 1880's and was instituted by Congress, not the courts, in the Interstate Commerce Act , and then a few years later with the Sherman Anti-Trust acts. It's been a part of the political fabric of the country for over a century, and sure maybe James Madison (and probably Jefferson) wouldn't have dug it, Hamilton, Adams and Washington would've thought it brilliant, so if you want to play the "Which Founder is the Real American" game, we can do that too. In fact Adams son was president when the Supreme Court first ruled on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
So if you want to use the usual and fifty year old trope about how how the "Commerce Clause" is used "unconstitutionally" go ahead, but there's one hundred+ years of precedent, laws and court decisions that say you're argument is full of bullshit.
You need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for your history.
I find it fucking humorous that all these rightwing douches want to roll the clock back to, I dunno, 1830 or so. You know, somehow that was a "magical, pure" time when the States, especially those with slaves, could tell the other states to stick it where the sun don't shine. It's a stance in defiance to all logic and reason to the historical changes. The US isn't some back water agrarian country removed from the center of the world. Wishing it won't make it so.
- the fdr thing was just me talkign about the democrat bill of rights. if u like to say how that works out go for it********
- if the history is wrong ok, but the moral of the story i thoguth was the distortion of the gov********
- and if u look at hamitlon and his pals he was a fricken tool that was hungry for power. he wanted a elite system over the rest********
- rest of the people. but still the idea stands on the bs interpretations of the constitution by the gov to benefit them********
- and logic and reason states that the commerce clause is used unconstitutially. thast the only court i go with.********
- Look the argument of Jefferson vs Hamiltonian interpretations of the constitution aren't zero sum.TheBlueOne
- & considering that the US Code is based on english common law, and that law interpretation has stood for 100+ years means it's constitutional anyway you slice it.TheBlueOne
- it's constitutional anyway you slice it. If you don't like it, the problem is with you.TheBlueOne
- why can health insurance not cross state line but car insurance can?********
- and i find it scary that a person who sees soemthign as law cant judge. guess law IS mind without reason.********
- the fdr thing was just me talkign about the democrat bill of rights. if u like to say how that works out go for it