|
| One
should<a
href="h
|
|
 |
|
 |
One should rhtear ask if it's even theoretically possible to distort the clause more than it already is. When prohibition supporters undertook to prohibit alcohol about a century ago, both they and their opponents openly conceded that the only way the federal government could do so would be by way of a constitutional amendment. Hence the 18th Amendment.A decade or so later the government undertook to prohibit various drugs and regulate firearms using the blatant fiction of revenue programs. They were able to get the general population to look the other way by assuring them that they were only going to crack down on drugs that others (i.e., Blacks, Latinos and Chinese) used, or rhtear abused, and guns favored by gangsters. They've been so successful in getting people to swallow this ruse that they openly assert that they have the authority to regulate and even prohibit guns that have never crossed a state line without any fiction of revenue programs.They can get away with this even among people who bother to read the Constitution thanks to the US Supreme Court. Since 1942 (thanks to another economic "emergency" prolonged by programs sold as remedies) the Court has held that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate goods that have never entered interstate commerce, but might possible affect the supply of or demand for other goods that are in interstate commerce. In simple terms, if the government decided it needed to help the motion picture industry to prevent the collapse of the economic system, it could regulate or prohibit community theater, oon the grounds that people might be more likely to to to the movies or buy videos in the absence of theater.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Aki
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
19 december 2014, 21:22:44
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
190.204.70.240
|
|
|
|
