Progress Judge Believes Commerce Clause is Superior to the Bill of Rights
Activist judges should never be trusted when it comes to the defense of our sacred freedoms.
The case of Range v Lombardo that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently decided on further demonstrated this harsh reality. The en banc court ruled that several felony convictions are not enough to limit gun rights, based on the history and tradition of this concept. 11 of the 15 judges agreed with the majority opinion.
However, there were four dissenting judges. One of the dissenting judges was Judge Janet Richards Roth. Effectively, Roth’s dissent made the case that the Commerce Clause takes precedence over the Bill of Rights. George H.W. Bush appointed her to the Third Circuit in 1991. Roth made the case that the Commerce Clause trumps the Bill of Rights. She used progressive argumentation stressing that times have drastically changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
In her view, the federal government must have more power than it is allotted under the Bill of Rights.
In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power. Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause,2 is constitutional as applied to him. The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.
Judge Roth believes that the modern expansion of the commerce clause, which includes practically all activity that has any impact on commerce, supersedes the Bill of Rights due to how the scope of modern commerce is much greater than commerce during the early days of the American Republic.
Such broad views of the Commerce Clause serve the Swamp regime very well. It gives it the power to justify large power grabs over vast facets of people’s lives.
If we want to preserve any semblance of our liberties, activist judges must be stopped at all costs. The courts should not be in the business of legislating.