TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:28 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:11 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:55 pm The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

I know you are just restating what the Court ruled back in the day, but that's some of the worst twisted logic ever from those folks.

This has to go down as one of the worst rulings ever by SCOTUS. Basically they said that the "interstate commerce" clause actually refers to every product or service purchased anywhere. In the minds of the justices that ruled for this, I guess the founder's were just joking about the "interstate" part, lol.

(If you already know all of this, I apologize, this is mostly me just putting down my thoughts on the subject.)

I truly believe the intent of that ruling was two-fold. One being a money-grab because it allows the taxation of more goods and services. Two, an attack on Federalism. The USA is SUPPOSED to be a constitutional federal republic, a nation comprising multiple states, each with their own internal self-governance except where that that governance would be in direct conflict with the constitution, that cooperate for specific common goals such as national security. There are certain folks and groups who don't like Federalism and want a one-nation all-powerful government where the states are just administrative entities for that government. Those folks and groups despise the Tenth Amendment above all others, except perhaps the Second.

C-dub wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:55 pm The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

I know you are just restating what the Court ruled back in the day, but that's some of the worst twisted logic ever from those folks.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:25 am

wil wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:08 am under a truthful reading of the commerce clause, this is entirely legal. The battle is likely going to be over the federal court case which said that if a given item doesn't cross state lines, it by default effects commerce within another state owing to it not being available. Which is completely non-logical in the face of what the commerce clause says.

Well, not to change topics, but……if the fedgov’t uses that argument, then the very NEXT case should be getting rid of Obamacare by allowing insurance carriers to sell across state lines………since the fact that they’re NOT allowed to do so was part of the rationale used to justify Obamacare.

Yes sir, that is one of the things that irritates me to no end. It either needs to be one way, or the other.

Again and again, they keep going about these things completely the wrong way. The right way would be to say that those laws will not be ENFORCED by state or local entities EXCEPT in conjunction with a violent crime such as murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. (Forgive me if I have used the wrong terms, I'm not attempting to cite specific laws but only to provide examples.) That way, if the Feds want to enforce those malam prohibitum laws, they'll have to expend THEIR resources to do so, except to catch actual violent criminals who have misused those items. Isn't that what California does in regards to illegal aliens?