Ding Dong the witch is dead.

You simply can not follow a thread. I said jurists as plain as day. If you do not know what the term means and think it only applies to SCOTUS then that tells me all I need to know.

 

you still need to prove your claims. You have yet to do so.

 

Then this is something we have in common.

 

So what is being cited is a matter of fact, rather than opinion like you have claimed to the contrary.

 

all I have to do is reference what the commerce clause and the second amendment says

 

You don't know what the commerce clause is and what the second amendment says?

 

where could you possibly get that idea? anyone who actually believes that federal gun control was intended by the Founders or is consistent with the words of the Constitution clearly doesn't

 

So every jurist that believes that is wrong but you are right? LOL

 

It has been said that a grand jury can be made to indict a ham sandwich. Perhaps that statement is more accurate than some would wish to believe.

 

I have yet to meet jurist who believes that the commerce clause was intended to do what FDR used it for. Rather those who like the results basically say "its established precedent" and leave it at that

maybe you-given your vast amount of constitutional scholarship-can make an effort to tell us that the FDR courts-culminating with "Wickard v Filburn" correctly overruled 140 years of precedent as well as the clear intent and written language of the commerce clause and expanded it to allow the federal government to control the actions of private citizens acting in a private capacity within their own sovereign states