If we're stuck with endemic gun violence because of an 18th century definition of "well regulated militia" then there's no way a purely online marketplace counts as interstate commerce. How do you fit that on a horse, exactly?
[–] 15155 1 day ago
[–] krapp 1 day ago
The reality of pre-industrial America circa the writing of the Constitution, which we have decided defines the limit of interpreting the language in that document.
If we're going to do that with guns we should be consistent and do that with everything. Non-physical goods didn't exist back then, the founders didn't know what an internet was, therefore online "commerce" doesn't exist as far as the constitution is concerned.
>Anyone that spouts this immediately signals their lack of English knowledge, law insight, etc. Even RBG didn't attempt this argument because it's literally incorrect.
And yet, DC vs. Heller.
[–] kube-system 1 day ago
Labor is a commercial service that has existed back to prehistoric times.
Ultimately, it seems you are arguing originalism, which is an opinion of interpretation that a minority of justices hold.
[–] krapp 1 day ago
I'm arguing that the Interstate Commerce clause was originally intended to apply to physical goods being transported across state lines.
You could transport physical money across state lines. You couldn't transport "a banking" across state lines.
You could transport horses, humans and machines. You couldn't transport "a labor."
Every one of these things comes down to some physical item that could be taxed as it crossed a border. That was the entire point of it.
So "data" and "information" don't count. Nothing exists that actually crosses state lines.
[–] kube-system 1 day ago
Not only was he was alive to see this clarified by SCOTUS in Gibbons v. Ogden, 7 years after he left the presidency -- in letters, he was himself arguing that congress should regulate shipping services.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-154...
Now, Ogden was arguing what you are -- that it only applied to the movement of physical goods -- but this was found to be the losing argument. And this was quite early on in that document's history.
[–] 15155 1 day ago
Did insurance markets and stock markets not exist back then? The Dutch East India Company is almost 200 years older than the United States.
[–] krapp 1 day ago
Why the fuck can't you read?
[–] 15155 1 day ago
> Why the fuck can't you read?
I'm not the one throwing "well-regulated militia" out as a serious argument (as if prefatory clauses somehow change the remainder of a sentence.) Why the fuck can't you read? Perhaps you should volunteer to be on the door-to-door confiscation squads.
[–] yieldcrv 1 day ago
so thats easy to square.
good news, the current Supreme Court has expressed interest in re-evaluating the New Deal era interpretations of the interstate commerce clause, in a way that could completely obliterate the Federal state and all of its agencies of the last 100 years
“omg I love SCOTUS now?”
Okay, so digital marketplaces aren't interstate commerce? Try again. Insurance markets? In what reality is "commerce" defined as exclusively-physical goods?
> well regulated militia
Anyone that spouts this immediately signals their lack of English knowledge, law insight, etc. Even RBG didn't attempt this argument because it's literally, obviously invalid.