Those are breathtaking leaps over complicated issues. Just because the clause is interpreted to give Congress a great deal of authority doesn't mean it can do as it pleases. The commerce clause is one of the most often litigated passages in the Constitution. There are limits though.ScottDLS wrote:Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.JALLEN wrote:It has been the law of the land since the 1930's that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to do all this. The cases since have steadily expanded that idea. The fight over the intent of the founders in this regard at least has been lost for 80 years.ScottDLS wrote:I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.JALLEN wrote:Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.ScottDLS wrote:
The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." Well, except for William O. Douglas and a couple of other eccentrics souls of like mind, the Court has gone along with Congress making all sorts of laws that impinge on freedom of the press, exercise of religion and curtail otherwise free speech
Really, purists have had little influence.
I know that in (legal) practice the Constitution means whatever a majority of 9 justices say it means at the time. OK, then the Republic is lost (probably is) and we should all just accept that our rights are only granted or allowed to us by our betters in the federal government. And there is no restriction whatsoever on the power of the central government over the States. The anti-federalist were right in the end...
On another Supreme Court matter on another forum, I recently quoted Harry Truman, "the only thing new in the world is history you don't know." You must read the cases, follow the development of the precedents, the limitations, the justifications for interpreting as they do. It is very time consuming. I spent last night reading ~50 pages of opinion and order from a senior district court judge analyzing and applying the search and seizure laws, standards for issuing warrants, etc. Balancing the competing interests to make sure law enforcement has a chance to be effective without depriving people of important Constitutionally guaranteed rights involves some rather fine lines.