It’s actually relatively safe. Most of the time they f*** things up by purposefully misinterpreting vaguely worded things. It’s pretty explicit. They would have to outdo themselves to abolish it outright.
Really? They completely fabricated history for Bruen. That’s not just misinterpreting vague wording. And then they stopped a very clearly worded EPA statute because the current Congress didn’t consent to the regulation. (A requirement never seen before or since)
The Constitution just says you need a postal service, it doesn’t say it needs to be government run. They can easily make an argument like that. The postmaster general would just be handing out contracts instead of running it.
I don’t see this Supreme Court pushing back too hard on any interruption similar to this.
Have you checked with the Supreme Court about what they think the founders intended?
It’s actually relatively safe. Most of the time they f*** things up by purposefully misinterpreting vaguely worded things. It’s pretty explicit. They would have to outdo themselves to abolish it outright.
Really? They completely fabricated history for Bruen. That’s not just misinterpreting vague wording. And then they stopped a very clearly worded EPA statute because the current Congress didn’t consent to the regulation. (A requirement never seen before or since)
The Constitution just says you need a postal service, it doesn’t say it needs to be government run. They can easily make an argument like that. The postmaster general would just be handing out contracts instead of running it.
I don’t see this Supreme Court pushing back too hard on any interruption similar to this.