Regular Correspondent W-III wrote to his list about a post by my friends at Western Rifle Shooters Association:
If you never read another of my e-mails, if you decide to block everything I send to you in the future as SPAM, if you’re so sick of the stuff I send you want to curse my name, Please, humor me one last time; click on the link below and hear what Judge Andrew Napolitano has to say.
[Link]
This man is a Patriot.
It's infuriating, considering the abuses Napolitano outlines, and then reflecting on how little so many of our countrymen seem to be aware of them, and how little they seem to care. And, yes, I know the Patriot Act happened under George Bush. Before the predictable accusations of ignoring Republican sins start coming in, I invite you to check my record on that. I also know there's plenty of guilt to go around.
I just did a blurb on that Wall Street Journal piece Judge Napolitano refers to on Friday. We've also discussed potential gun rights implications of the health care takeover by distorting founding intent for the commerce clause.
I'd like to add one more thing to what Judge Napolitano recommends. While you're asking your representative to show you where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to involve itself in health care, also ask them to point out their enumerated delegated power to regulate guns--you know, the one that overrides "shall not be infringed"...?
------------
As an addendum, I'd like to point out that W-III is a retired peace officer who doesn't hold all that denigration of law enforcement I supposedly do against me.
Comments
In years of demanding that congressthings show me any Constitutional authority, only twice ha any provided "answers": the all-purpose "general welfare clause" (which is only an introductory statement of intent, not an enumerated power) and "interstate commerce" (which clearly means anything -- and thus nothing -- now).
BTW, I also was once a peace officer (_not_ Law Enforcement Officer, dammit). My reasons for quitting were many and complex, but a large factor was that David is right about "Only Ones".
peace officer (_not_ Law Enforcement ) Yes!!!! thank you for recognizing that where so many do not, and Thank you for your service.
Obviously, if you're on the left, the Judge is a racist. If you're on the right, he's obviously working for al-quaeda.
I have a hunch that many don't have the education to know better. Which brings on another question, where does the federal government get its power to control our school or propaganda centers for children.
On asking one's Congressional rep to show "Where in the Constitution does it say. . . ." If your Rep asks in return, "Where in the WHAT?", you're not allowed to shoot him/her/it but your mission in the next election is clear.
On being imbued with American lore, myths and tradition, many in Congress were simply not raised by elders who knew enough or cared enough about those things to be able to pass them on. To what extent should we imagine residents of Hawaii focussed on the culture of the mainland U.S.? Their heritage was derived primarily from an olio of traditions derived from Oceania and the Asian-Pacific rim nations. IMO that's a major reason that Obama seems not to have a clue at how shockingly alien his political and economic philosophies are from the mass of native-born citizens.
I would love to know how the Commerce Clause can be claimed to give authority to infringe on the Second Amendment. Does not the amendment modify the original document, thus removing any authority to infringe that the original body of the Constitution might allegedly contain?
As near as I can figure, Mike V, if they claim control over all interstate commerce, that includes at all times. Now, since they control time, they can go backwards to before the amendments were added...
Either that or they have NO authority...which our finest minds in government clearly dismiss as preposterously impossible.
From Anti-federalist No. 82, a patriot writing as "Brutus", March 1788:
"... It appears, that the expense of attending suits in the supreme court will be so great as to put it out of the power of the poor and middling class of citizens to contest a suit in it."
The kleptocrats are well aware of this fact pointed out by "Brutus" some 220 (+) years ago and take full advantage of it.
They will pass whatever laws, establish whatever regulations, and mandate whatever requirements they wish. Only those financially well off or able to garner enough monetary support to take a case to the SCOTUS will be able to successfully challenge their actions, if the SCOTUS decides to hear the case.
Since when has the majority of the D.C. kleptocrats cared what the Constitution authorizes?
[W-III]
David,
Thanks for getting me over here. This subject is the key to our problem.
What is "Interstate Commerce" as used in the Constitution? Does Congress have the power to redefine what "Interstate Commerce" is? I say that they do not. When an act of Congress defines "Interstate Commerce" they have ceased using the power to regulate interstate commerce and are legislating for areas of federal jurisdiction. This is hard to grasp at first but with the aid of word processors, searching for the definitions used in a particular statute is possible. I have not found an exception yet, that when a statute redefines "Interstate Commerce" it will also redefine "State" so as not to include the States of the Union. So what on it's face seems to be an abuse of power is in fact not directed at the states at all. The enforcement against the people of the States is an abuse, the statute is not.
I did a piece on Nov 9 on health care--look for the link in the sentence: "Ah, back to the old Commerce Clause again, are we? You know, the one where 'Neither trade with the Indians nor interstate commerce shows up as a significant issue in the original debates.'"
We're where we are because people in power--including judges--began perverting things for their own gain as soon as they figured out how to. Now we are living under the tyranny of judicial precedent that allows for regulation and legislation the Founders would never have dreamed of, not just for the Commerce Clause, but for the "general welfare" concept--which was intended to be provided for through limited powers by adhering to the rules and restrictions that followed. Ditto, look how many say "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment means gun control is Constitutional. It's a total perversion they get away with because We the People let them.
Go back to the fight over gun free school zones law. The one that said essentially if you live across the street from a school, your 2A rights are gone. The Solicitor General for Clinton was giving oral arguments to SCOTUS on a challenge of the law. One justice asked him if it was the administrations position that there was no part of American life that could not be controlled by the government under the commerce clause. His one word reply was "Yes."
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!