For John Roberts, it was a "hapless toad'' in the path of a California housing development that represented the limits of the federal government's power to regulate activities within a state. For Samuel Alito Jr., it was a machine gun.
I have no idea what Alito thinks about machine guns or government power to regulate them. Based on the case before us, neither does anybody else. We do know something about what he thinks of the perverted use of the interstate commerce clause, and that is a point in his favor.
We shouldn't confuse his stance against a catch-all use of the interstate commerce clause as a stance against gun control simply because a machine gun was mentioned. He did say that government might (I hate non-specific opinions, with all their back-up room)have a valid interest in the regulation of the item, just not under this clause.
Says to me that he has considered the validity of gun control if done through what he views as proper process.
Or maybe not, we don't really know. His statements in his dissenting opinion do not address the issues of gun control or the 2A, just whether or not you can justify everything under the commerce clause.
I need to know more. Though, a justice that doesn't buy the interstate commerce clause as blanket permission for any government action is an improvement over what we have had.
I have no idea what Alito thinks about machine guns or government power to regulate them. Based on the case before us, neither does anybody else. We do know something about what he thinks of the perverted use of the interstate commerce clause, and that is a point in his favor.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't confuse his stance against a catch-all use of the interstate commerce clause as a stance against gun control simply because a machine gun was mentioned. He did say that government might (I hate non-specific opinions, with all their back-up room)have a valid interest in the regulation of the item, just not under this clause.
Says to me that he has considered the validity of gun control if done through what he views as proper process.
Or maybe not, we don't really know. His statements in his dissenting opinion do not address the issues of gun control or the 2A, just whether or not you can justify everything under the commerce clause.
I need to know more. Though, a justice that doesn't buy the interstate commerce clause as blanket permission for any government action is an improvement over what we have had.