Not if you consider some of the shit the Commerce Clause has been used to justify. Consider Wickard v. Filburn (1942) in which a farmer who grew too much wheat was penalized, insisted it was for his personal use, and still got smacked down.
That case was made possible by FDR’s New Deal creating limits on wheat production. While I think it could have been argued many different ways, they did present a fairly logical argument using the commerce clause against the ND law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m taking these for the police to use.
Not if you consider some of the shit the Commerce Clause has been used to justify. Consider Wickard v. Filburn (1942) in which a farmer who grew too much wheat was penalized, insisted it was for his personal use, and still got smacked down.
That case was made possible by FDR’s New Deal creating limits on wheat production. While I think it could have been argued many different ways, they did present a fairly logical argument using the commerce clause against the ND law.
deleted by creator
Eminent domain isn’t in the constitution but gun rights are. That’s not going to fly in the current supreme court.
And notably the 4A.
deleted by creator