Thread: DC Circuit Court of Appeals completely ignores Founding Intent in Decison

The DC Court of Appeals in it's recent decision intentionally ignored founding intent when issuing it's ruling:

From the Decisions itself:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ca-opinion.pdf

We look first to the text of the Constitution. Article I, § 8,
cl. 3, states: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes.” (emphasis added). At the time the
Constitution was fashioned, to “regulate” meant, as it does now,
“[t]o adjust by rule or method,” as well as “[t]o direct.”27 To
“direct,” in turn, included “[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to
mark out a certain course,” and “[t]o order; to command.”28 In
other words, to “regulate” can mean to require action, and
nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to
those already active in relation to an interstate market. Nor was
the term “commerce” limited to only existing commerce. There
is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument. So we
turn to Supreme Court decisions.

The Framers, in using the term “commerce among the
states,” obviously intended to make a distinction between
interstate and local commerce, but Supreme Court jurisprudence
over the last century has largely eroded that distinction.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. This all goes back to FDR and his (*)(*)(*)(*)ing socialist administration. FDR was as scummy tryant who inflicted on this nation a tyranny as grave and evil as the one inflicted on the Venezuelan people by Hugo Chavez. President for life FDR was a socialist scumbag, and we can look directly to him and the commies that infiltrated his administration and Government for a short while and left the precedent necessary for this. A precedent so cruel and tyrannical that said it could force a man with no money to afford food on the open market to none the less purchase that food on the market rather than grow his own.

Well, the Roberts Court is notoriously originalist, let us hope and pray they they won't toss the American People and our freedom under the bus when the Supreme Court rules next year based on an extorted decision of a threatened Supreme Court.

What kind of Country that calls itself "free" tells a man with no money to purchase food that his civic duty is to starve to death rather than grow his own food? Does that sound free to you?

This country in those days was a socialist dictatorship every bit as tyrannical as Joe Stalin's and Hitler's. That dark shady past should be clearly broken with, if not by court action, then by Congressional Action in the future under a properly patriotic and freedom loving Republican Congress.

If there is a hell, I hope that crippled commie we called a President is burning in it!

Its just as it is inter state commerce as per stated in the doctrines of the land.

Good job to the court

Originally Posted by liberalminority

Its just as it is inter state commerce as per stated in the doctrines of the land.

Good job to the court

No, it's not. The Court specifically stated that it is not interstate commerce, but used the precedent from an ancient decision handed down during a time when the court was under extortionate threat from the communist mole that somehow got elected President in a time when the education of the average American was 8th grade, or 15 years old.

So in a time when the average mentality of an American was that of a teenager a commie populist took over and installed himself for life and instituted communist reforms that were eventually undone, but because the Supreme Court precedent isn't so easy to undo, today's socialists have an easier time of it.

Sure I understand you support such scummery but any true American should be pissed off about it.

If it wasn't for McCarthy throwing all those FDR commies out, we'd be in that position still today.

Does anyone besides a troll have a comment?

OH GOOD GOD! The progressive piece of (*)(*)(*)(*)s really have infiltrated every level of our government! Can we make it to 2012??

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

No, it's not. The Court specifically stated that it is not interstate commerce, but used the precedent from an ancient decision handed down during a time when the court was under extortionate threat from the communist mole that somehow got elected President in a time when the education of the average American was 8th grade, or 15 years old.

So in a time when the average mentality of an American was that of a teenager a commie populist took over and installed himself for life and instituted communist reforms that were eventually undone, but because the Supreme Court precedent isn't so easy to undo, today's socialists have an easier time of it.

Sure I understand you support such scummery but any true American should be pissed off about it.

If it wasn't for McCarthy throwing all those FDR commies out, we'd be in that position still today.

Does anyone besides a troll have a comment?

the supreme court interpreted the wording in the best interests of the United States at the time and it still resounds today as it so should

Originally Posted by liberalminority

the supreme court interpreted the wording in the best interests of the United States at the time and it still resounds today as it so should

When?
10char

"regulate" in those times meant "to make regular". The founders did NOT want the government controlling interstate commerce. They wanted the federal government to enable regular commerce between the states. THATS IT. The left wing interpretation of the colonial definition of "regular" has gotten us in a whole load of mess that we are in today.

The DoC has to be abolished.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous

"regulate" in those times meant "to make regular". The founders did NOT want the government controlling interstate commerce. They wanted the federal government to enable regular commerce between the states. THATS IT. The left wing interpretation of the colonial definition of "regular" has gotten us in a whole load of mess that we are in today.

As much as I appreciate your viewpoint, I beleive that judges who have been trained for years in Constitutional scholarship have a bit more claim to define what "to regulate" means than you do. I am not arguing over the definition of what "regulation" in the Constitution means.

This is about falling back on a decision pass in the 1940's during this nation's time of crisis and brush with Marxism that almost resulted in us becoming a communist dictatorship under FDR and his unethical threatening of Supreme Court justices that forced them to make such decisions that told an honest and free American he had no choice but to buy wheat on the open market or starve to death.

That is tyranny, plain and simple, and that tyranny is a direct result of FDR, and that tyranny led to McCarthyism, which eliminated much of FDR's carefully laid plans after his death(thank god) but there are still vestiges of his tyranny that are being abused today.

We have to figure out a way to make a clean break with that socialist tradition and right now the only people who can do that are the United States Supreme Court. Our freedom lies in their hands, as the Founding Father's intended them to be the last line of defense of Freedom.

Let us hope they don't (*)(*)(*)(*) it up.

The Constitution means what the FOUNDERS said it means. No court can change or amend the Constitution by judicial review. The Leftists are bringing the United States to the verge of another Civil War. Secession is after all LEGAL under the Constitution since Jefferson Davis could not be charged with treason, really anything at all AFTER the Civil War, and the shooting war started AFTER the Northern Army refused to vacate Southern Forts they had no right to occupy after Secession.

Read up on the Commerce Clause, and its true meaning.

http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#II