Search the Lounge


« Law & No | Main | The Great Gatsby and Anti-Feudalism in American Property Law »

May 06, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeff Matthews

Well, you can look to McDonald v. Chicago, just a couple of years later and see that the SCt is bogus. The Slaughterhouse cases might be the closest we have to original intent of the 14th Amendment:

"We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all; and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."

That about explains it correctly. Look what has happened to the 14th since (or should I more accurately say, "the rest of the Constitution?").

When the post-war amendments were drafted, we had this existing amendment (the 1st) which stated "CONGRESS shall make no law..." You'd have "thunk" that if the balance of sovereign domains between the federal and state governments was to be handed over to the feds, that the drafters of the post-war amendments would have re-written the 1st Amendment to make clear that the prohibition was not only on Congress. It's just one, big "oops." Or maybe they left it just so they could vex us future generations and make us wade through a pile of strained constructions.

The ONLY purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the powers of the feds. Then, along comes the 14th. The Slaughterhouse court seemed to have an uncanny recollection of what these new amendments were set out to do. But naturally, reconstruction made the feds a bit drunken with power, and it was only a matter of time before the Constitution would be rendered all but dead.

About every BS clause in Article 8, Section 1 has been warped beyond belief - the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, etc.

Wickard vs. Filburn - NOT consuming wheat sold in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce.

It took amendments to the Constitution to pass and repeal Prohibition, but merely an act of Congress to step on the toes of citizens of the various states and tell them they couldn't smoke the weed of their choice. At least, says Raich v. Gonzales. Go figure. Oh, yeah, that's because when a lady swears she smokes weed only grown in her back yard and doesn't sell it, she could be lying and selling it across state lines - thus, interstate commerce." You know, the old "guilty until proven innocent" approach to Constitutional construction? It goes like this:

"The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market."

Yep, that lady might say she's not engaging in interstate commerce, but we know all those pot-heads are liars. Therefore, let us decree: "The facts don't matter."

It's all a joke, really. I can't imagine why anyone takes the Constitution seriously anymore. About the best that can be said of today is the citizens will just have to lick their thumbs and put them up in the air to find out when the feds have become too oppressive.

I really don't know why anyone even cares to make Constitutional arguments anymore, except to the extent the argument predictably matches what at least 5 of 9 goofs want it to mean.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad