Court refuses to hear case

Cancel8

Canceled
..."The U.S. Supreme Court declined a chance to put new restrictions on the power of Congress, leaving intact a federal law that bars people convicted of a violent felony from owning body armor.

The justices today turned away an appeal by Cedrick Bernard Alderman, a Washington state man who sought to overturn his conviction for possessing a bulletproof vest. He had previously been convicted of robbery.

The case, had the court considered it, might have affected the legal challenges to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul. Both issues turn on the scope of Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia criticized their colleagues for not taking up the case, saying they were allowing the “nullification” of earlier rulings limiting Congress’s authority..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ns-left-undisturbed-by-u-s-supreme-court.html
 
What we need is an amendment that redefines federal authority over interstate commerce to those actions which assure state commerce laws are fair between the states, and nothing more. More federal power has been usurped under the heading of "interstate commerce" than any other factor.
 
What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.
James Madison, Federalist No. 44, January 25, 1788
 
Back
Top