Comments on: Not the only one http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tgirsch http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/comment-page-1/#comment-45233 tgirsch Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:48:24 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/#comment-45233 <b>Uncle:</b> But I think the argument is that the SCOTUS bastardized it by <i>leaving it up to the legislature</i>. That is, the SCOTUS has mostly ruled that it is the Congress and not the courts who get to decide what "commerce" is. Uncle:

But I think the argument is that the SCOTUS bastardized it by leaving it up to the legislature. That is, the SCOTUS has mostly ruled that it is the Congress and not the courts who get to decide what “commerce” is.

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/comment-page-1/#comment-45230 SayUncle Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:25:36 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/#comment-45230 gm, i think the SCOTUS bastardized the commerce clause. gm, i think the SCOTUS bastardized the commerce clause.

]]> By: gmcraff http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/comment-page-1/#comment-45227 gmcraff Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:22:28 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/#comment-45227 The precedent for how Article II is being interpreted has already been set by Congress in their super-elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If Congress can interpret "regulate" from it's original meaning of "set in good working order" to "control all aspects of and retain control over anything that ever moved in interstate commerce", then I suppose it's FAIR ENOUGH (in terms of the power struggle between the three branches of government) to interpret Article II to mean that the President has the authority to act as he sees fit with regards to any party named in a (de facto) declaration of war. These broad interpretations will, if they do not already, step all over the American people while these behemoths tussle. The precedent for how Article II is being interpreted has already been set by Congress in their super-elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

If Congress can interpret “regulate” from it’s original meaning of “set in good working order” to “control all aspects of and retain control over anything that ever moved in interstate commerce”, then I suppose it’s FAIR ENOUGH (in terms of the power struggle between the three branches of government) to interpret Article II to mean that the President has the authority to act as he sees fit with regards to any party named in a (de facto) declaration of war.

These broad interpretations will, if they do not already, step all over the American people while these behemoths tussle.

]]> By: #9 http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/comment-page-1/#comment-45226 #9 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:22:10 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/01/05/not_the_only_one/#comment-45226 Even George Will has heartburn over this. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will122005.asp Even George Will has heartburn over this.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will122005.asp

]]>