A Ninth Circuit panel held, 2-1, that the answer is yes. Today, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, and four judges — Judges O’Scannlain, Paez, Bybee, and Bea (one of whom, Paez, was the dissenter from the panel opinion) — dissented.
Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.
nice strategy says:
That was fast.
What of the rehabilitated felon who returns to live in a dangerous environment? This troubles me.
If felons can be denied fundamental rights like VOTING as an ex post facto consequence it stands to reason that they can be denied all sorts of other constitutional protections. Right?
February 3, 2010, 5:00 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I don’t know why any court bothers to use the Commerce Clause ruse anymore. If it really was a Commerce Clause power then every country beware of the US Congress because they have to power to regulate commerce with them.
They should just be honest and say “this is the way we think it ought to be.”
February 3, 2010, 5:04 pmDave N. says:
For those who do not know the ideology of the current Ninth Circuit Judges, O’Scannlain, Bybee, and Bea are all generally considered “conservative” and Paez is generally considered “liberal.”
February 3, 2010, 5:08 pmLTR says:
I wonder what are the chances of this one getting picked up by SCOTUS. 1 in 5?
February 3, 2010, 5:22 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Does “arms” include “armor”?
If a militia utility test is used it would certainly pass as all troops are issued armor now. Common use too, probably, as private security and police almost uniformly wear it as well. Not sure how to track “civilian” ownership except by raw sales figures not on gov’t contracts of one sort or another, but I personally know several business people who wear it on occasion.
February 3, 2010, 5:32 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Uh, it does.
February 3, 2010, 5:36 pmWaste93 says:
So if selling and buying by felons of body armor is interstate commerce. Does that mean that state shouldn’t have collected sales tax when it was purchased?
February 3, 2010, 5:43 pmAnderson says:
I’m glad that Bybee has become so concerned for civil rights.
Wonder when that happened?
February 3, 2010, 5:44 pmDan Hamilton says:
Yes, armor should be covered by the 2ed. But it is illegal for felons to have firarms and ammo, so no armor should be No Problem.
Now no armor for non-felons would be very bad and as unenforceable as no firearms.
February 3, 2010, 5:44 pmOren says:
My milk carton said it was bottled in NH, I’m pretty sure that doesn’t relieve me of paying MA sales tax.
February 3, 2010, 5:53 pmLarryA says:
You mean like owning guns, having to be on a sex offender list, and having restrictions on where they live. Yup. That’s why there needs to be a way to eventually restore those rights for felons that go straight.
OTOH felons wearing body armor to a planned shootout is pretty offensive.
1. Texas also has a law prohibiting felons from possessing armor.
2. It’s better than a general ban on anybody but law enforcement, or some kind of licensing scheme.
3. In 2004 there was a shooting outside a Tyler, Texas courthouse where the shooter wore armor. A CHL, Mark Allen Wilson, shot him, but was killed after the shooter got up. Once they knew about the vest, police later took the shooter out.
You mean like the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibits for life possession of any firearm for a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) or anyone not convicted of any crime but who is the subject of a restraining order by an intimate person. Or the law that prohibits possession of firearms by any person who has renounced U.S. citizenship?
February 3, 2010, 5:55 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Interesting question on how many rights a felon has to give up. Can we tattoo a Scarlet A on their foreheads to forever identify them to the public?
February 3, 2010, 5:55 pmOren says:
The circuit split makes it at least 2 in 5.
No court is ever going to throw that out though, the question is whether Congress can do so.
February 3, 2010, 6:05 pmBuddy Hinton says:
No court is ever going to throw that out though . . .
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Eventually there is going to be found a limit as to what rights can be taken from felons. When that limit is determined, I would not be surprised if wearing body armor is deemed a right that cannot be taken. The fact that it is illegal for the felon to have a gun already makes any benefit to society of illegalizing body armor pretty marginal. Pendulum is just beginning to swing back on all the 9/11 excess like these body armor bans.
February 3, 2010, 6:13 pmArthurKirkland says:
This is entirely tangential (at best), but I have two questions spawned from a visit to the body shop for repair of at least a half-dozen “dings” caused by others’ car doors:
(1) My repairman indicated that large-vehicle owners — who appear to experience door-on-neighbor collisions with some frequency, consequent to difficulty in fitting their vehicles into the parking spaces they are entitled to occupy — purchase “door guards,” which enable them to transfer to the other guy the consequences of their desire for more space than that provided by parking lot lines. In other words, when their door strikes another car’s fender, the victim gets a “ding,” but the guard ensures the wrongdoer’s vehicle is unscathed. Who would design or buy such a guard?
(2) The repairman told me that some SUV owners are equipping their vehicles with cage-like guards (he jokingly called them “peoplecatchers”) that enable them to avoid damage when interacting with other vehicles in tight spaces; again, the jerk skates while the victim returns to his vehicle to find a nasty reminder of an encounter conducted in his absence. Are enough SUV owners boors to support a market for this type of apparatus?
I leave it to others to tie these questions to the body armor issue, but my mind is twisted enough to see a connection — offensive use of ostensibly defensive equipment, maybe.
February 3, 2010, 6:14 pmfwb says:
Once upon a time in America, everyone knew that the government had no power to ban anything. So they passed the 18th Amendment ALLOWING the government to prohibit the possession of intoxicating liquors. But they never, ever passed any other amendments allowing the government the authority to prohibit the possession of other things.
The government just stole the power with the aid of corrupt courts.
The end
February 3, 2010, 6:15 pmAsh says:
The felon disenfranchisement rules are permitted under the SC’s interpretation of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which specifically allows for the disenfranchisement of those who participate in “rebellion, or other crimes.” There is no such provision in the constitution that explicitly permits the denial of 2nd amendment rights (or even say 1st amendment rights) to felons, so a direct application of armor/gun bans for felons should take note of that fact.
February 3, 2010, 6:17 pmCrazyTrain says:
People have a constitutional right to wear body-armor when the government simulates drowning them. . . .
February 3, 2010, 6:20 pmArkady says:
I guess the most notorious use of body armor in the commission of a felony (well, felonies), is the North Hollywood Shootout, which went on for about 45 minutes. Some of the cops first on the scene had to go to gun store to get weapons that would penetrate the armor as their standard firearms were ineffective. The whole thing, or most of it, was televised in real time.
February 3, 2010, 6:22 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Tangental? Are you sure you didn’t mean orthagonal? =)
Doesn’t intent come into play? Door guards are designed to protect the door from all sorts of contact, walls, trash cans, signposts, etc, not specifically to inflict damage on other cars. Unless they make them with spikes?
Brush guards on an SUV or truck likewise are designed to protect the grill and lights from damage while off road (which does raise the question as to why folks who will never, ever, leave pavement are willing to tote around that weight with its corresponding effect on mileage). On some models they are standard equipment or a selectable option not even “aftermarket”.
I’m not sure how we’d get from mere possession of an objectively useful accessory to intent to deliberately (or negligently) cause harm to another. Though that’s the issue in play with the body armor too I guess.
February 3, 2010, 6:29 pmjccamp says:
Oren –
The circuit split cited by the dissenters is based on an interpretation of the majority opinion, not on the narrow issue of whether the vests are subject to control via the Commerce Clause. In the original opinion, the majority specifically claims not creating a circuit split as one basis for declining to join with the dissent. (“Nor do we think it prudent to create a circuit split on this important statutory issue that Congress views as having nationwide implications.”“)
I guess I’m saying that whether a circuit split exists is a matter of opinion. The majority says no split as to vests, the dissenters obviously assert an affirmative as to theory (creating the ability of Congress to regulate vests and felons). This latter seems significant mainly as a hook for rehearing or as leverage for consideration by the guys with the Big Gavel at the SC.
As an aside, this is the kind of esoteric distinction that often leaves laymen wondering if lawyers aren’t debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It seems perhaps removed several steps from the actual issue re: felons and vests.
February 3, 2010, 6:38 pmArthurKirkland says:
An answer, according to my repairman, is that large-vehicle owners chafe against standard parking spots yet insist on using more space than they are entitled to occupy, have frequent minor collisions with other vehicles, and wish to transfer surrepticiously the costs of their seflish conduct to others.
It works at least as well as the “off road”
February 3, 2010, 6:40 pmexcuseexplanation.Steve says:
Arthur, that sounds a lot like saying that fat people insist on using more seating space than the chair entitles them to occupy. If the vehicle is larger than a standard parking space, it’s not a question of what the owner feels entitled to do, the vehicle is what it is.
It’s annoying when someone parks over the line (large vehicle or not), but you’re still expected to refrain from damaging their vehicle.
February 3, 2010, 6:44 pmMatthew Carberry says:
The North Hollywood guys bought production vests and plates (not sure if it was legally) but I believe they made their own arm and leg armor. You can buy kevlar cloth and stitch it together yourself as they did, we’d need to regulate that and any functionally similar yet not purpose designed fabrics as well to have a ban worthy of the name.
Since most rifle rounds will penetrate all but purpose designed strikeplates I’d think the better solution would be, as LAPD has now done, to better equip the officers rather than depending on motivated criminals to obey yet more purchase or possession regulations (like the ones about fully automatic weapons the North Hollywood guys also ignored).
We hear about criminals using body armor, and it then being a problem for police, partly because it is so rare now. Is the regulation really called for at the Federal level if some states didn’t see a problem and were free to make their own laws on the subject if they eventually did?
February 3, 2010, 6:47 pmCrunchy Frog says:
The LAPD and City Council were so embarrassed by the whole ordeal that they made life so difficult for the gun shop (B&B Gun Sales) that it was forced to close its doors.
Be careful who you do favors for, I suppose.
February 3, 2010, 6:47 pmArkady says:
Well that fucking sucks.
February 3, 2010, 6:53 pmSwan Trumpet says:
In general, the more conservative the individual, the more problems they have with congress – or even states – passing legislation that denies individuals the right to utilize a passive means for self-defense.
February 3, 2010, 6:58 pmSigivald says:
The far more plausible explanation for brush guards and the like (which in many cases are not located in a place where they’d be much use in a sub-walking-speed parking lot scrape; eg grilles over lights) is that they’re a signaling mechanism (“the owner of this vehicle actually takes it offroad, which is why he has these”) or serve a function like collecting travel brochures when one does not travel (“if I ever decide to go offroad, I’ll be prepared”, or “I want to go offroad someday”).
If it was a matter of large vehicles and damage alone, I’d expect to see them on vans and full-size trucks, not just pseudo-offroad SUVs.
I don’t (and I pay attention to such things to an extent that surprises me).
Thus it seems that the signalling explanation is more effective; there’s no signalling of that sort to do with a cargo van, and a full-size pickup with four wheel drive, well, already signals that by its very nature, in the way that a RAV-4 doesn’t, say.
(And now that I mention it, that’s another argument for signalling features; I’ve seen lots of SUVs that aren’t really any bigger than a large sedan, and many are smaller [like the old Samurai and the original RAV-4] – yet such “offroad look” accessories aren’t unpopular on them.
A Land Rover Freelander is half an inch narrower than a Toyota Camry, and over a foor shorter, yet they sell brush bars and all the other accouterments for them… thus it can’t just be that they’re “armor for your giant car being too big and smacking stuff”. – cause nobody sells a brush bar for the Camry, which is by no stretch of the imagination “oversize”.)
February 3, 2010, 6:58 pmOren says:
I will give you 1000:1 odds.
Also, the 9/11 comment is bizarre — these bans were all passed in the 80′s and 90′s.
February 3, 2010, 7:07 pmOren says:
You are correct.
February 3, 2010, 7:09 pmA. Dawson says:
It amazes me that Congress has the authority to decide what we choose to wear.
Ridiculous and wrong.
February 3, 2010, 7:24 pmA. Dawson says:
It amazes me that Congress has the authority to decide what we choose to wear.
Ridiculous and wrong.
February 3, 2010, 7:24 pmFub says:
Next up: Anybody convicted of felony (or enumerated misdemeanors and civil infractions such as nonpayment of parking tickets) related to operation or ownership of a motor vehicle will be subject to a lifetime prohibition on use of seatbelts, airbags or safety glass. That’ll make ‘em think twice before doing the crime!
February 3, 2010, 7:26 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Did the framers of the Second Amendment intend for it to cover body armor? Can the amendment fairly be read to include body armor?
February 3, 2010, 7:28 pmBuddy Hinton says:
Calif ban 1998.
Fed ban 2002.
TX ban 2001.
If these bans had passed in the 1980s, then they would have been gone before 9/11. You have to remember, that was back when more judges had their heads screwed on right.
February 3, 2010, 7:29 pmPintler says:
Isn’t the Heller test ‘in common use’ (implicitly, by civilians for self defense)? I don’t think body armor can meet that test.
February 3, 2010, 7:44 pmAsh says:
Here is what Heller states:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter- pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”
That would seem to mean that “arms” includes body armor, or err… armour.
February 3, 2010, 7:54 pmArthurKirkland says:
perhaps the psychological profile of those who prefer to take more space than they are entitled to — and if the parking lot operator paints lines, that signals precisely how much space a driver is entitled to occupy for the price of one parking place — and don’t mind transferring the cost of their preference to other drivers doesn’t overlap with that of Camry drivers enough to make production of Camry versions worthwhile?
February 3, 2010, 8:04 pmBuddy Hinton says:
I don’t think the right to wear body armor (for felons or non-felons) is or should be limited by the Second Amendment. It is a right that might be expanded by the Second Amendment, but it is not limited by it. Kind of like the right to wear earmuffs is not jeorpardized by the fact that the 2A does not address earmuffs.
February 3, 2010, 8:07 pmArthurKirkland says:
Prepare to remain amazed. An astonishing number of Americans reportedly support prohibition of marijuana, contraception, flag-burning, cocaine, abortion, alcohol, same-sex marriage, dirty books, fatty and empty-calorie foods, the teaching of evolution and the bowl-selection system.
February 3, 2010, 8:12 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I don’t think the 2A is intended to address misc. armaments of private citizens within the several states. The court hasn’t even decided whether it is even applicable to the people of the states after 200 some years against local action.
More likely it is just an declaration like the 10A that the military power of the states belong with them and the people and not in any national standing army.
February 3, 2010, 8:47 pmOff Kilter says:
So because body armor can be used in conjunction with firearms, which felons are already prohibited from owning/using, the body armor as well, though PURELY DEFENSIVE per se, can also be prohibited.
Can Congress prohibit felons from exercising or body building, since buffed and healthy bodies can be used in conjunction with firearms for offensive purposes.
February 3, 2010, 9:26 pmSwan Trumpet says:
I think it can, especially in light of the Heller opinion. The text of the 2nd Amendment is rooted in a foundation that precedes the constitution. It comes from the unalienable right to self-defense. In the language of the Declaration, that right is endowed by the Creator.
February 3, 2010, 9:47 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Heller is pure unadulterated crap. The reason there is a 2A was not because of any concern for personal self-defense but because it was demanded an amendment be included to protect against a standing army or select militia. It was Jefferson’s first complaint when he read the draft of the constitution that it did not include any security against standing armies. The 2A was in response to Jefferson’s (and others) complaint against standing armies.
February 3, 2010, 9:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
Thanks be to Allah.
February 3, 2010, 10:11 pmSwan Trumpet says:
I see David Kopel, Research Director for the Independence Institute listed as a contributor to VC and I’m sure he’d respond to your assertions much better than I. But if you have time, you might want to read The Natural Right of Self Defense: Heller’s Lesson for the World. Symposium issue on the Heller case. 59 Syracuse Law Review 235 (2008).
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller constitutionalized the right of self-defense, and described self-defense as a natural, inherent right. Analysis of natural law in Heller shows why Justice Stevens’ dissent is clearly incorrect, and illuminates a crucial weakness in Justice Breyer’s dissent. The constitutional recognition of the natural law right of self-defense has important implications for American law, and for foreign and international law.
Keywords: District of Columbia v. Heller, Second Amendment, self-defense, natural law, inherent right
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1172255##
February 3, 2010, 10:38 pmArthurKirkland says:
Summary: Judicial activists get to five votes, find new right in Constitution, delighting usual critics of judicial activism.
February 3, 2010, 11:32 pmTC says:
Aren’t ex-felons, even the law-abiding, more likely than the average person to have enemies/former associates who want to shoot them?
February 4, 2010, 1:04 amjccamp says:
Arthur –
You’re on a roll tonight. Whatever you’re
smoking, uh,ingesting, er,imbibingreading this evening, you’re being very funny. You should do this more often.“It amazes me that Congress has the authority to decide what we choose to wear.”
Federally Mandated Dress Codes. I never thought of it in these terms. Hope they don’t put Barney Frank in charge…
February 4, 2010, 1:13 amjuris imprudent says:
AK sez Prepare to remain amazed. An astonishing number of Americans reportedly support prohibition of marijuana, contraception, flag-burning, cocaine, abortion, alcohol, same-sex marriage, dirty books, fatty and empty-calorie foods, the teaching of evolution and the bowl-selection system.
Which only goes to prove how wise the Founders were to institute a federal govt of limited and enumerated powers, and how insanely stupid the progressives-cum-liberals are to insist on the all but unlimited power that any narrow, transient majority can wield.
February 4, 2010, 1:20 amjccamp says:
TC –
I’d submit that felons, like U S Marines, are never ex-. Once a convicted felon, always a convicted felon (unless, of course, you made a healthy contribution to Clinton’s brother who told Eric Holder – but I digress), and statistically far more likely than the average person to engage in future felonious activity. Same rationale as prohibitions on convicted felons and gun possession.
Actually, although the cited USC refers to violent felonies, the OP is really about the power of Congress and the Commerce Clause, not the usefulness or desirability of armored vest bans and felons.
I don’t know enough about it to claim any particular knowledge of the Commerce Clause. I like a ban on vests possessed by violent felons, although that could be done via state statute I suppose, albeit in somewhat longer and messier fashion.
February 4, 2010, 1:24 amJ. Aldridge says:
I have never seen anything from him that cannot be completely refuted with hard evidence (no need for out of context quoting to do it).
Heller was completely shot to pieces by real historians who are not biased activists.
February 4, 2010, 2:09 amJ. Aldridge says:
As one scholar points out, maybe someone can point out why a constitutional amendment would be needed to single out self-defense while leaving out equally important other natural law rights.
February 4, 2010, 2:37 amPintler says:
I wasn’t referring to whether ‘arms’ includes armor (I think it does, but I’m not on the SC).
I was referring to Heller (pages 55-58) which contains language like:
“Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’”
“The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society…”
and so on. My amateur reading is that the court thinks it’s not OK to ban ‘arms’ that are in common use for self defense, but is OK to ban ‘arms’ that are not in common use for self defense.
I don’t think body armor is in common use for civilian self defense. I know lots of people with carry permits, but zero who wear body armor. The only civilian I have ever encountered who even owned any was an instructor at a defensive shooting class, and he only wore it at class (worrying not about crooks, but newbie students).
Maybe I run with a reckless crowd, and there are lots of more cautious people out there wearing well concealed body armor. That’s just not my experience. I’m think it’s unlikely – even the police officers I know (who, IMHE, are always armed) don’t wear armor off duty, because it is not very comfortable to wear.
February 4, 2010, 8:58 amOren says:
Because the British colonists had specific experience with the government depriving them of a particular set of rights. The Bill of Rights was shaped, in no small part, by the details of this tyranny.
The proscription of general warrants and quartering of soldiers, for instance, seem odd until one realizes this …
February 4, 2010, 9:19 amJ. Aldridge says:
How does one person owning a firelock at home protect himself against tyranny?
February 4, 2010, 3:03 pmAnon Y. Mous says:
He bands together with others who are like-minded and forms a militia.
February 4, 2010, 4:21 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Under state militia laws, yes. Individuals never said to themselves, “I think I will form an armed militia tomorrow” because to do so was required and regulated by state law. Hence, a collective self-defense by the people of the states.
February 4, 2010, 5:52 pmSwan Trumpet says:
David Kopel was cited by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Skoien last November and by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. McCane last July. He also gave testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the 2nd Amendment record of Judge Sotomayor.
David Kopel graduated the University of Michigan Law School, J.D. magna cum laude and Brown University, B.A. in History with Highest Honors. National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis.
Keep shooting yourself in the foot.
February 4, 2010, 6:00 pmTatil says:
Oh, get off your high horse. “Conservative-cum-right-wingers” support plenty of unlimited power (or judicial activism) in many other areas. For example, the right of the president to declare who is an enemy without judicial oversight, to declare who can be subjected to torture, to empower a commission of bureaucrats to declare which TV programs people are allowed to see or to empower legislature to tell which medical procedures are legal comes to my mind. Demanding small government until there is something you want to enforce on others or until when you are scared enough of something is not any virtue.
February 4, 2010, 6:19 pmAnon Y. Mous says:
Yes, a collective self-defense was the end. The means was an individual right to bear arms. The framers realized that the way to collective safety is through individual liberty.
February 5, 2010, 12:48 amLarryA says:
Body armor is harder to throw away while fleeing.
OTOH the law against felons possessing firearms doesn’t have a very impressive track record of actually preventing felons from possessing firearms.
Around my part of Texas, where running into a critter crossing the road is a distinct possibility, those are called “deer guards,” and do serve a useful and entirely legitimate purpose.
Of course, we also tend to have decent-sized parking spots.
February 5, 2010, 1:52 amJ. Aldridge says:
States made it mandatory who was to bear arms and what arms they were required to bear. They could even require you to carry arms to church. If you didn’t have a “gun” they provided you with one. Some states provided the arms directly from public stock. They also would fine you if you refused to bear arms.
That does not sound like an individual liberty to me but more like a duty of citizenship.
February 5, 2010, 12:09 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I guess according to Heller when new citizens took the arms bearing oath to become citizens of the United States that meant they were required to go out and buy a gun for their own self-defense.
February 5, 2010, 12:12 pmdivemedic says:
This is not about what rights a felon has or does not have. It should be about what POWER the Federal Government has. Look at the enumerated powers that Congress has and tell me how prohibiting body armor for ANYONE falls under one of Congress’ enumerated powers. Simply put, there is no such power.
Since there is not, please refer to the tenth Amendment:
and don’t tell me that the commerce clause does it, because if that were true, then there literally is nothing that Congress cannot control, since everything can be stretched to somehow relate to commerce. We might as well tear up our founding documents and admit that the government has perished.
February 5, 2010, 6:03 pmTed says:
A masterful use of statical analysis. So, you are saying, people who commit felonies are more likely to commit felonies than those who do not commit felonies? Or are you making the more fine-toothed distinction that those who have committed past felonies are more likely to commit a second felony than non-felons are to commit a second felony? Or, are you making the simple statement that persons who commit a first felony are more likely to commit a second felony than non-felons are likely to commit a first felony? If it is the third option, how do you know who has committed a first felony, or do you intend to limit the scope of your analysis to the universe of those convicted of a felony and those not convicted of a felony? Personally, I wonder how many people have committed felonies but have never been or convicted? And I wonder how many repeat felons are convicted for a second felony primarily due to their having been convicted of a first felony. I apologize if these questions muddle the clear statistical analysis you offer.
For your decent-sized people.
True, true, true, false. Government has not perished, it has become omnipotent. But I empathize with your frustration. The disconnect between today’s limits of government power and the language and spirit of the constitution are troubling, to say the least. Worse yet, it is a ratcheting effect that will not be reversed in our lifetime; the currently interpretation of the commerce clause isn’t going away anytime soon.
February 5, 2010, 7:32 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I wouldn’t even call it commerce clause interpretation because it is so non-commerce related. I think “judicial imposed trade power” is a more fitting term.
February 6, 2010, 7:12 pmdivemedic says:
I meant to say “government of the people” – a reference to the Gettysburg address.
February 6, 2010, 10:46 pm