A warning, which will be ignored

WSJ : No Federal solution on Roe

Just as WVA v EPA has ramifications on regulation far beyond the original issue, trying to codify Roe v Wade using the Commerce Clause could trigger a decision placing strict limits on that justification, and about half of what the Federal Government does hangs on that pretense,

So, push your luck, I might get that Libertarian paradise after all.

30 thoughts on “A warning, which will be ignored

    1. And if an attempt is made to try using the Commerce Clause, it could start the dominos falling on the improper and unconstitutional use of that as justification for so much of the expansion of Federal powers


      1. Enjoy it while you can. Minority rule is inherently unsustainable and doubly so when that minority is dominated by ignorant and vicious people.

        “Conservatives” are dying the death of 1,000 cuts and do not even know it. Each abhorrent court decision, every piece of Theocrat legislation, and each new revelation of the banality and criminality of your leaders is another nick. Gerrymandering and voter suppression has carried you about as far as you are going to go. So, enjoy it while you can.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I don’t know why liberals find governing within the constraints of the Constitution such an onerous burden.

          The same limitations on the power of government that protect me from Obamas and Bidens protect you from Nixons and Trumps.


          1. “I don’t know why liberals find governing within the constraints of the Constitution such an onerous burden.”

            The Constitution is fine. The problem is activist ideologues who ignore it when throwing out decades of precedent. That happened with Heller – thousand dead as a direct result. It happened with Dobbs – thousands will die as a direct result. And now the wall between church and state is being torn down by these activist Theocrats.

            And, once again, you can get off your high horse. You refuse to condemn violent insurrection and to repudiate the politicians behind it. So much for your respect for the Constitution.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. None of that is at all responsive.

            Since Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court has been the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.

            I’ve had to live with activist decisions all my life, and the current court is slowly returning us to the true Constitution.

            You can’t rationally defend the abuse of the Commerce Clause, and you know it. Most of what the government does has been illegitimate since the Roosevelt administration in the 1930’s. It’s past time we return to the true meaning and decentralize the government to the states.


          3. …”returning us to the true Constitution.”

            You mean the same Constitution that the Founders and authors said needs to grow and change as life progresses?

            We do not need to go back to 1787; we need to bring our laws into the 21st Century, as the founders said.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. The Constitution contains the means for amending it as times change.

            But that does not include simply ignoring its plain, contemporary meaning or claiming meanings not contemplated by those who ratified it.

            The war in drugs, for example, is justified by the Commerce Clause.

            “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

            So, tell me how that applies to a person’s choice of intoxicants.


          5. Contemporary meaning? As defined by activist right wing justices who want to take this country back to the time of white, male, property ownership as the only arbiter of who is a citizen?

            Screw that.

            And the amendment issue is impossible because consensus cannot be met in these times of rampant division because of people like you who believe that the 1787 meanings of words are the only ones that matter.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. The Constitution is the agreement between the people on how we govern ourselves.

            It’s meaning is how it was understood by those who ratified it. That is the only time the people agreed to it.


          7. And those who ratified it also understood that PROGRESS and growth would cause needs to alter the meaning as time changed.

            Your insistence of dragging this country back to the 18th century is disconcerting.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. And you don’t want to admit that PROGREESS does not include keeping the rules as they were in 1787. Amendments are not always necessary; just an update to language that reflects the times while keeping with the INTENT, not the words, the INTENT, of the founders.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Adapting the freedom of the press to electronic media is in keeping with the original intent, but what about prohibitions on hate speech, which have become law in Canada?

            Is that an adaptation to changing times, or is that a violation of the first Amendment?


          10. Not Responsive?
            Because YOU cannot see the truth in front of you?

            The “true Constitution” does not allow the government to fund churches, force schoolboys to pray, or take ownership of women’s bodies. The “true Constitution” established a “well-regulated militia.” The “true Constitution” gave the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

            You stand by the Constitution EXCEPT when the fascist you like tries to overthrow it. Or when the party you favor is given the benefit of CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL action by the Supreme Court like that time they appointed GWB to be the President.

            We are one country. The idea of 50 different forms of government, incompatible laws, regulations, and individual rights, etc. is a dangerous and foolish anachronism.

            You people lost the Civil War. Get over it. And, according to you, it was not about slavery at all – it was about states’ rights. And you lost.

            You are riding high now. As I said, enjoy it while you can.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. “It’s meaning is how it was understood by those who ratified it.”

            And yet you really believe that people in 1789 did not understand what a “well-regulated militia” entailed. They were people who regularly stored their weapons and ammunition at a community armory for safekeeping and to avoid misuse.

            And let’s not go into how very, very different our world is compared to theirs. That alone makes the “originalist” approach a foolish one that is going to harm the people and the Court. SCOTUS has NEVER been held in lower regard than it is today.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “And if an attempt is made to try using the Commerce Clause, it could start the dominos falling…”

        That makes sense. With so much dysfunction in our federal government today, the Constitutional ideal of decentralization could become popular.


  1. “Could Congress impose a nationwide ban? In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the justices upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Yet what Linder states about control over medical practice arguably would apply equally to a nationwide ban or lesser restrictions.”

    It states quite clearly here that nationwide abortion bans would also fall out of Constitutional favor.

    Yet I have yet to see anyone here say that bans being suggested by national level candidates are an issue. SO which is it? Congress can codify Roe or they can pass a nationwide ban? Or neither? And why won’t the anti-abortion zealots on this board acknowledge it?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. George Washington, widely regarded as the most important American of his day, died after being drained of over 5 pints of blood because he had a sore throat. The family had called four leading doctors to manage his “care.” These are the brilliant, learned sages to whom we must defer in all matters in perpetuity.

    Liked by 3 people

          1. Would you have known in Washington’s time that you had a condition that would KILL you if the normal course of treatment for something else was necessary?

            Or should medical care revert back to bloodletting for EVERYTHING?


          2. I don’t know what you are getting at.

            Of course our knowledge has progressed since then.

            What are you trying to get at?

            BTW How are you today?


          3. Less congested, still low energy. Thank you for continuing to check in on my health. It is appreciated.

            PROGRESS is the point. If we still lived as they did in the 18th Century, then none of these conversations would be necessary. PROGRESS, good and bad, is why language needs to be updated to match the progress that this country, and the World, has made in the past 246 years. (235 if we go by Constitutional Birthday).

            Liked by 1 person

          4. You’re welcome.

            I assume you are in contact with your physician now. You missed the window for Paxlovid but you are coming on to the phase where fluvoxamine or a corticosteriod will be helpful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s