Thanks for pointing me to the footnotes--
-boldface formatting is my own-
concerning the reach of the government under this ruling:
Quote:
|
[ Footnote 24 ] In Santa Cruz Co. v. Labor Board, 303 U.S. 453, 466 , 467 S., 58 S.Ct. 656, 660, Chief Justice Hughes said: "direct' has been contrasted with 'indirect,' and what is 'remote' or 'distant' with what is 'close and substantial'. Whatever terminology is used, the criterion is necessarily one of degree and must be so defined. This does not satisfy those who seek for mathematical or rigid formulas. But such formulas are not provided by the great concepts of the Constitution such as 'interstate commerce,' 'due process,' 'equal protection"
|
I realize that you're getting your info from pro-gun biased source, and honestly the application of this ruling to disallow students from carrying guns on public school property is legally convoluted and really doesn't work. If you seek to make this a legal practice on any state level, go ahead and try. It won't be popular given the problems our schools have had with students not only carrying guns to school but killing a good number of their fellow students.
As I pointed out several posts above, that the ICC was used to strike down nearly every Jim Crow law on the books. That's an aspect of this ruling that I do think works quite well and advanced our society (dare I say civilization) substancially.
Moosenose, you must realize that you're following the exact same line of argument used to defend every segregationalist law ever enforced and subsequentially dismantled by the Supreme Court. You're placing yourself in Birmingham 1963, not with Martin King or the SCLC but with the folks holding firehoses and german shepards.
If you're comfortable with this I accept it, but will refuse further discourse with you. If your desire truly is to weaken the power of the Federal government to the point of allowing the return of Jim Crow then I am telling you it will require secession. I personally refuse to live in such a country.