[Amendment10]

Not only has the Supreme Court historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, but the Court has also clarified the following limit concerning Congress’s constitutional Commerce Clause (1.8.3) powers.

Since banking is based on contracts (corrections welcome), not commerce, Congress’s Commerce Clause powers do not extend to regulating contracts, even if such contracts are negotiated across state borders.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” — Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869.

So if the corrupt Justice Department wants to seize suspicious bank accounts, and it may have reasonable cause to do so in certain cases, then it needs to comply with the 4th Amendment.

[A Formerly Proud Canadian]

Amendment? Schmendment! We don’t need your stinking amendment!

[OneWingedShark]

CWII Spark Ping — If they do this on any sort of scale, there WILL be repercussions; yet I fear that this is merely an extension of “asset forfeiture” and will be used gradually until there are people defending it as legitimate as well.

[Paladin2]

Repeal Filburn v Wickard.

[i_robot73]

Not that is matters anyhow (since it has not been followed for over 100 years), but there’s a few Amendments, somewhere in there, that specifically deny such tyranny.

Say, what’s the word from the GOP and party leadership about such a blatant, in-your-face police state tactic??

*crickets*