Government does many things that it cannot legally do. Often in conjunction with creating laws that authorize it to carry out illegal activities in the open.
Incorrect. What is being cited is a matter of fact rather than opinion. Government on all levels in every nation do engage in illegal activities of all sorts.
I guess you don't care about the government following the constitution as long as the deviations further your desired jihad against gun owners. Of course if the government does something you don't like I am sure you will be happy with that too?
You sure will. Look you have YOUR opinion of what is constitutional I have MY opinion of what is constitutional and then Scotus has THEIR opinion of what is constitutional. Just don't present your opinion as fact.....because it ain't.
and since I have lectured on the second amendment and have read at least 90% of the leading law review articles and all the relevant USSC cases its pretty obvious that the USSC has shirked its duty and allowed a dishonest expansion of the commerce clause to remain. Here is the difference-you are unable to fashion a rational argument in favor of what the court has done other than saying "that's what it did". I have crafted a rather effective argument that the second amendment has been violated by the federal government and if you read the academics who support what the USSC did under FDR-the best they come up with is "its precedent"
You have lectured? Seriously? Well clearly you know more about the issue than our supreme court justices. THAT IS HILARIOUS!
most law professors who specialize in constitutional law do. Few of those chosen for the USSC were top of the drawer constitutional law experts. but why are you diverting from my point other than to prove you don't have an argument
you prove that the constitution intended to give the federal government gun control powers you ignore 1) that the commerce clause mentions NOTHING about individuals 2) that until the FDR administration, the precedent at all levels of federal courts was that the commerce clause did not give congress any jurisdiction over private citizens 3) that the Second Amendment was enacted AFTER the commerce clause and thus overrides it even if the conflict happened 140 years later go ahead, see if you can actually argue constitutional theory
You appear to be the only one who hasn't figure it out how is "commerce among the states" a grant to congress to regulate private citizens and the arms they own?
98.69% of constitutional scholars disagree with you. See how easy that is when you don't have to cite evidence. LOL
well given your posts have never demonstrated any familiarity with constitutional scholars or scholarship, I doubt anyone else on this board believes that. indeed, your posting history suggests you don't believe it either.
in a court of law-some opinions are valued and accepted as evidence. Mine would be such an opinion. Other opinions are rejected because the person uttering it have no credentials in the field. That is pretty much why most of the people who actually understand gun issues and constitutional law "like" my opinions and why yours is pretty silly and has no basis in fact
At the end of the day it is still an opinion. And right now your opinion has zero legal weight. When you sit on the bench let me know because as of now you are simply giving a personal opinion that many well respected jurists all over the country disagree with. In fact 98.6% of them do. LOL
you are not telling the truth. Justice Thomas agrees with me. he suggested in the Prinz decision, that the brady bill was unconstitutional. Alito apparently is in the same camp but he was not on the court at the time.
You are hilarious. You think if you cite two jurists that means that means that 98% of jurists can't disagree with you? How many jurists do you think we have in this country? LOL
see that is the typical dishonesty in your post You make a silly comment that has no factual basis and when you are called on it you divert. You have to prove your claim that 96+% of the jurists agree with your silly misinterpretation of the second amendment Can you do it You also apparently are ignorant of the fact that any judge-short of the supreme court-has to follow higher courts whether they believe it or not.
