View Single Post
  #689  
Old 06-09-2017, 12:04 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump1 View Post
An interesting letter written to Representatives Richard Hudson, Justin Amash, and Trey Gowdy regarding constitutional theory and HR 38.
In that letter, they write:

Quote:
Congress has other powers that would be more appropriate. The Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to “prescribe * * * the Effect” of state acts, records, or judicial proceedings in other states. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. For instance, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act requires certain state child support laws to be given their full effect in every other state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h). Similarly, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act requires every state to recognize certain child custody judgments from other states, and it forbids them from exercising their ordinary jurisdiction over such disputes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738A.

Congress has used this power only rarely, but soon after the Founding it often debated doing so.
So rather than use the well-understood (though overly powerful, as the letter outlines) interstate commerce power, the authors of the bill suggest that instead the bill should be based on a Constitutional principle that has hardly ever been used???

If it's hardly ever been used, then it means it is not legally well-defined, which means the courts will have a field day "interpreting" it as they wish.

Nope, that's not a recipe for disaster at all ...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.