2nd Amendment ---- and other superfluous provisions

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some parts which only limit Congress though, like the First Amendment, are clearly redundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent the First Amendment, could Congress create a law banning all (or severely regulating) all advertising of goods sold through the channels of interstate commerce?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. "Severe" regulation isn't regulation at all, it's a blatant attempt by Congress to make themselves powers that don't exist.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
"Severe" regulation isn't regulation at all

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it does seem like the Bill of Rights was written "tightly" in that an attempt was made to keep ambiguity to a minimum.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL???? You might try reading Amendment 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems clear to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the wording and meaning are clear enough in themselves, but name the rights in question. All of them :P

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that the Constitution is not intended to be an enumerations of all rights that an individual has. If that was the case then any "right" not mentioned would be automatically in the purveyance of the government. My understanding is that Madison clearly did not want the Constitution to be interpreted this way i.e. as an enumeration of all rights that an individual possesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, we both understand that, but just because you and I get it doesn't mean it's not confusing. My point is that many, many people out there find it damned confusing. This is clear from the fact that they DO treat "the Constitution is not intended to be an enumerations of all rights that an individual has."

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Severe" regulation isn't regulation at all

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

My best guess is that you're being sarcastic here. I'm guessing you prefer sarcastic one-liners to actually asking the questions that might help you understand something you obviously don't? Makes me realy eager to talk with you.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you prefer sarcastic one-liners to actually asking the questions that might help you understand something you obviously don't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any question about your position. Any regulation you think goes too far is beyond the power of Congress, despite the specific provision in the Constitution expressly giving Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce (not "moderately regulate" or "regulate just a little" or "regulate until AlexM complains"...just "regulate.")

[elwoodblues]

Incidentally, I think there is a very good argument that the Interstate commerce clause has been too broadly interpreted. That overbreadth does not, however, stem from an expansion of the word "Regulate"

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you prefer sarcastic one-liners to actually asking the questions that might help you understand something you obviously don't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any question about your position. Any regulation you think goes too far is beyond the power of Congress, despite the specific provision in the Constitution expressly giving Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce (not "moderately regulate" or "regulate just a little" or "regulate until AlexM complains"...just "regulate.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, I think there is a very good argument that the Interstate commerce clause has been too broadly interpreted. That overbreadth does not, however, stem from an expansion of the word "Regulate"

[/ QUOTE ]

So... let's say Congress decides to "regulate" the sale of Coca-Cola by charging $100000 a can to carry it over state lines. You wouldn't consider this too broad an interpretation?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So... let's say Congress decides to "regulate" the price of Coca-Cola by charging $100000 a can to carry it over state lines. You wouldn't consider this broad an interpretation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would consider it a bad law, possibly counter to other provisions of the constitution, but NOT unconstitutional on the grounds that it is not a "Regulation" within the meaning of the Commerce clause's power to "regulate.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the 3rd amendment has never been interpreted by a court, and likely never will be, so you could probably remove several clauses from it without any effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

That there has been little interpretation of the Amendment says nothing about how much you can/cannot delete from the Constitution. Which clauses in particular could be deleted?

Could congress (absent the 3rd) quarter troops in times of peace?
Could the President in a time of war without Congressional authorization quarter troops?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting something from the amendment likely would change the meaning. My point is that the meaning doesn't really matter because the amendment, as long as it is there in principle, will likely never be invoked. e.g. You could change it to "No Soldier shall be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner" and it wouldn't change military practice.