There's Always a Twist In a new twist, the government has added an additional count, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats or violence, to punish the defendants and prevent their actions from occurring in the future. In the original charges for the alleged plot, the commerce clause would have been used to secure jurisdiction. The latest indictment could mean that the government may argue that the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate commerce by threats of violence and that this is an inherent right of the federal government. This would bring it closer to a view that some lawmakers have been espousing for some time. Congressman Steve King of Iowa, for example, has made waves recently, with claims that the U.S. has authority over "human biology." It's worth considering what the legal justification would be if Congress is attempting to take such a move. The commerce clause grants authority to Congress to regulate commerce, which some believe means the regulation of all industry or commerce on a national level (think airplanes). But there are certain exceptions to this theory, and the so-called "dormant commerce clause" would likely be one of the areas where this would take place. As it says on the Wikipedia page, the clause basically states "Congress cannot regulate areas of traditional state concern." That means that if Congress was trying to force gun control, they would run into a lot of trouble. The second option that is often brought up is the "plenary power" doctrine of the 10th Amendment. This would give states all rights that are not given to the federal government. But that would also mean that Congress would have to prove why gun control should be an issue of interstate commerce. This line of reasoning could also work in the state's favor, and would also mean the government would be hard pressed to prove an actual interstate component. The question is, will this change how our legal system views gun control? A similar case involving the constitutionality of flag desecration failed. If this fails, it means the courts are taking a very strict stance on what is considered interstate commerce. The government is trying to show that the violence should also be considered interstate commerce, but given how the Supreme Court ruled on flag desecration, and the legal difficulty they had there, this may not be possible. What this all means is that the first amendment will once again be tested by the government, with much of the evidence having to come from documents that may or may not be allowed in court. And then there's this quote from the Second Amendment Foundation: "It's not a question of whether the government has the power to stop violence; the Supreme Court already ruled that they don't have to, and they don't." That means that the government will get the right to interpret and determine what violence is and who can be regulated and what actions should be stopped. This case will continue to unfold, and it may be several years before it is resolved. But for now, the decision is in the hands of a jury, and as with any case, there is no guarantee what they will decide. [Image via The Wall Street Journal] This article originally appeared on The Daily Dot.