Skip to main content

Libertarian comment rescue: Interstate commerce v 2nd Amendment

This comment by GRex over at Hube's place got me started thinking:

They're most likely trying to ride the Craig's List killings and that woman who drove a teenager to commit suicide. Add that to the grandstanding over NCAA football playoffs, and I wonder if there's anything at all that Congress can't mess with under the Interstate Commerce Clause?


Here's what the comment made me think: the Interstate Commerce Clause is the (supposedly) (only) Constitutional basis for virtually all major legislation for the past several decades, but what I never see is any calls for an originalist interpretation of the ICC.

Yet at the same time we are usually inundated with arguments that the 2nd Amendment was only intended to arm militias, or arguments that the Framers never anticipated automatic weapons to justify gun control.

I'm trying to distill this contradiction down to a workable premise, and I think I've got it:

Parts of the Constitution that empower the State can be constantly re-interpreted, but those parts which restrict the power of the State must remain as narrowly limited as possible.

Comments

Hube said…
Amen, Steve!
keydet aka Townie 76 said…
Steve,

Very interesting post. First an interesting comments regarding a linkage between two of your points, the investigation on the need for a playoff for Division 1A football is being chaired by Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois. Representative Bobby Rush is also the same individual who has introduced HR 45 that if passed would make gun ownership illegal.

As you are aware, I am more liberal on some things and more conservative on others than you, however I find that Representative Rush legislation is nefarious. There was a point in my life, that I accepted George Will's belief that the 2nd Amendment was unfortunate; however a number of years ago when doing some in-depth study of the Origins of the Bill of Rights; I came to the conclusion that none of the rights was more scared than another; than in fact they are all fundamental, inalienable rights which the founders believed were essential to ensuring the power of the state remained checked by the citizens. I concluded that the founders knew what what they meant. (As I pointed out to you in an email--unfortunately Congress did not take the language proposed by James Madison which might have ended misunderstanding regarding the 2nd Amendment.)

The problem, is that, there is a certain group within our Society, who wishes to recast the meaning of the Constitution as they want it not as it is. Bobby Rush does not understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights nor does he understand the purpose of the Constitution; that the Bill of Rights protects the citizens and states from the concentrated power of the central government; and that the Constitution defines what the central government must do and what it can not do.

Whether Congress should be telling the NCAA how to run corrupt college sports is another debate; however I would point out that the NCAA was born out of the actions of a very activists President--Teddy Roosevelt.

Hank Foresman
The Last Ephor said…
This divide was most recently illuminated with split between Scalia and Thomas over the medical marijuana issue before the USSC. Scalia argued that the interstate clause may apply even if the stuff was produced and consumed w/in the state exclusively as it might impact prices across the several states. Thomas countered that anything would then be covered under the clause including garage sales, quilting bees and everything else.

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba