Congress can legislate on ANY legitimate issue. Even if not enumerated in the Constitution.

Oh! Thanks for reminding me. *proceeds to read through the thread*

 

Read my sig! If YOU have a point to make, you do YOUR research. I do my research, I don't do yours.

 

When Golem is losing, he tends to exaggerate.

 

you are being much too polite

 

I already know the numbers. It would be good for you to look it up. That way, it would stick with you.

Clue. You could take away orders of magnitudes fewer guns in Chicago and save more lives than by taking away the guns of law abiding citizens.

 

Yep, I was right. The goal of the OP is to bypass the limitations on the Federal government in order to enact more gun control legislation.

So predictable. Of course he's going to deny it. But he gave himself away by his 3rd post.

 

True. Someone on this forum tried to argue that if 2A were repealed, Congress, therefore, could no longer legislate on firearms. In rebuttal, I raised the same point regarding the 'necessary and proper' clause, so anything concern to all US Citizens is fair game for congress to legislate on.

 

The rules of this forum disallows referring to others (naming names) in the forum on the OP.

Right?

 

yeah, that's the common COP OUT on the right if the argument exceeds their attention span.

 

Congress can legislate on firearms within the constitutional constraints set by

United States v. Miller (1939)
District of Columbia v. Heller (200
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)

Those are the main ones, as far as I know.

 

No thanks. That would make absolutely ZERO difference to any of the points I've been making. Not to mention that it's not the topic of this thread.

 

This is a blanket excuse that has been used by right wing extremists to oppose legislation about anything they dislike: the environment, guns, Covid, seat belts.... But the purpose of the Constitution is clear. And Marshall's opinion has been used for 200 years. There is just no way around it.

 

We all have beefs with the justices on how they rule, but their rulings, whether we agree or disagree, are the final say on any issue on what is 'constitutional' (until they overrule themselves at a later date).

And, if we accepted your logic, we could own nuclear bombs. You see, we have to allow SCOTUS to comport the constitution to societal evolution which the forefathers could not possibly predict, and Marbury v Madison gave us judicial review of the Constitution.

Therefore, on firearms, Congress can legislate within constraints set by

United States v. Miller (1939)
District of Columbia v. Heller (200
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)

Those are the main ones, as far as I know.

 

Not to mention Marbury v Madison.

 

But you have already commented on it.

Taking away the guns of a few thousand people in Chicago, plus a few other large cities, would save more lives than taking away the guns belonging to a hundred million law abiding citizens.

Never have so many been blamed for the crimes committed by so few.

 

Yes, that's true.

The sovereign, meaning any head-of-State, has had certain inherent powers since time immemorial.

To enumerate those powers would make Article II of the Constitution more than 100,000 pages alone.

The men who wrote the Constitution took a simple more elegant approach.

The President has all the powers inherent to a sovereign since time immemorial except for those which are expressly barred or restricted or restated.

Some examples of inherent sovereign powers since time immemorial:

1) The power to declare/wage war. That power was taken from the President and given to the States via the Senate and the people via the House;
2) The power to levy taxes: That power was taken from the President and given to the people via the House;
3) The power to appoint cabinet members, ambassadors, and judges. Those powers were taken from the President and given to the States via the Senate;
4) The power to enter into treaties. That power was taken from the President and given to the States via the Senate;
5) The power to pardon. The President retains that power but within the limitations stated.

Now that you have a clue, we can look at Article I and the legislature. Legislatures since time immemorial have had certain inherent powers. To enumerate those powers would make Article I more than 100,000 pages long. Once again, the men who wrote the Constitution took a simple and elegant approach.

The legislature is limited to those powers expressly stated in the Constitution and no others.

A similar approach was take for Article III and the judiciary. Yes, there were judges 7,000 years ago in ancient Sumer and even before that justice was meted out by each tribe or clan in accordance with cultural customs.

The US Supreme Court is the court of last resort but Article III states the Supreme Court can function as a trial court but only in certain defined and limited circumstances.

The reason Article I limits Congress is because as we have seen repeatedly, Congress oversteps its bounds.

I'm sure you don't believe they do because you're not well educated on the subject, but fear not, I am.

Congress attempted to ban guns within a certain distance of schools and it claimed it had the power to do so under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court properly and promptly put Congress in its place declaring what was obviously a gross abuse of the Commerce Clause to be a constitutional violation.

I mention that because while Article III does not expressly say the Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of any statute, it does not expressly prohibit it, and review to test for constitutionality is an inherent power of courts since time immemorial.

Congress has enacted many statutes that are unconstitutional. Many of those statutes have never been legally challenged, although they should be but the fact that they have not been challenged does not mean they're constitutional. It just means they haven't been legally challenged.

The Supreme Court has addressed unstated inherent powers in more than a dozen cases since 1950. I'll let you find and review them.

Wait...I'll give you a hint: Dalton.

I'm giving you that hint because he was a cabinet officer. What powers does the Constitution grant cabinet officers? It doesn't matter because the Supreme Court said that particular cabinet position has inherent powers even though the Constitution makes no mention of them.

 

You have to propose an arguable position. You didn't, just tired slogans, mantras, and general BS.

 

You can't quote another's post?

 

Justice Marshall says that Congress has way more power than those that are expressly stated in the Constitution. This opinion has been used to enact legislation about MANY topics not expressly stated in the Constitution for over 200 years.

Correct!

They haven't been challenged, in no small part, because of Chief Justice Marshall's opinion. You wrote a loooong post just to say you don't agree with it. However, agree or not, it's unlikely even the most radical activist Supreme Court, like the one we have now, would risk creating the institutional crisis that challenging Marshall's opinion would provoke.

 

has Marshall's opinion ever been citied to support a gun control law. The Supreme court has correctly started to reign in much of the idiotic uses of the FDR Commerce Clause expansion-5 justices correctly held the Obamacare was not constitutional from a commerce clause basis.

 

Has ANY court opinion EVER been cited in ANY legislation that Congress passes? I don't recall any.

 

when democrats have passed gun control laws they invariably cite-in the statute, the bullshit commerce clause expansion that the FDR administration created. I have yet to see any citation of anything remotely referencing your interpretation of what Marshall said

 

I wasn't aware that FDR issued court opinions.

 

what exact powers did Heller recognize for the federal government

and since you appear to have read Miller-explain how the 1986 ban on the M4 military rifle is constitutional since that rifle is the standard issue of the National Guard and most state police agencies.

 

That's why I said the FDR administration-not FDR. administration would include his lapdog supreme court and congress-