The case is United States v. Comstock.
Thomas and Scalia dissenting.
Not long ago, this Court described the Necessary and Proper Clause as “the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action.” ... Regrettably, today’s opinion breathes new life into that Clause, and... comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that “we always have rejected"... In so doing, the Court endorses the precise abuse of power Article I is designed to prevent—the use of a limited grant of authority as a “pretext . . . for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government.”This is something that might be disturbing to the Tea Party folks.
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
I would think it disturbing to anyone who cherishes freedom. The ruling cedes almost unlimited power to the Federal oligarchy. With this ruling, the Federal government can launch any initiative it pleases without any fear of meaningful resistance. It also indirectly gives the Federal government virtually unlimited authority to quell resistance by Federal police means....all of course glibly cloaked in the mantra "rule of law."
BTW....Hillary the Hag has been busy in NYC with a number of things, among which is the continuing support within the UN to effectively disarm Americans under the auspices of "international law."
My sense is that continuing down this road to perdition will raise hackles in much more than the so-called Tea Party. Bad things are going to happen to good people, all for the egomaniacal political dreams of a select elite.
One problem is that many people (both in and out of the TP "movement", but often especially in) enjoy the results a potential police state can achieve, in terms of subjugating potential terrorists and supressing/expelling unwanted aliens. They unfortunately do not always think past these short-term goals to the long-term impact of having such a police state apparatus for a government.
We need to choose liberty over security, just as Franklin admonished us. (Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither, and will lose both, or something like that). That WILL mean more violent episodes perpetrated by both external terrorists as well as internal illegals. But it's the cost of liberty, and I think we all need to realize we NEED to pay it.
Post a Comment