Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Constitution Does What it Was Written To Do — Expand Government Power
Mises Institute ^ | January 9, 2018 | Eric Peters

Posted on 01/09/2018 2:49:30 PM PST by Mafe

A great many people – especially conservatives – reverence the Constitution, consider that it has been abused and that if only the doctrines expressed within were revived and respected, all would be well with America again.

This, of course, is a kind of children’s bedtime story – and approximates reality to about the same degree as the story of the Three Little Pigs.

The Constitution was peddled and imposed on us by men like Alexander Hamilton, a grasper after power who very openly loathed the ideas expressed by men like Jefferson in his Declaration (and even more so in his Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions).

Hamilton and his faction – they were called Federalists, which meant then what it means today – intended to create a centralized government on the British model, but without a hereditary monarch. The Bill of Rights was just barely added, in order to sooth the (rightly, as it turned out ) suspicious, such as George Mason of Virginia.

Patrick Henry smelled a rat.

At any rate, the fact remains that the Constitution was written with great calculation by lawyers – who are trained in and well understand the meaning and potential use of words – in such as way as to assure the expansion of federal power via (among other things) the purposely open-ended Commerce Clause and deliberately nebulous phrases such as “general welfare” that can be – and have been – interpreted to mean . . . anything those who control the levers of the federal government wish it to mean.

Including – as actually happened during the Roosevelt Years – that a man farming on his own land whose produce never leaves his land let alone the state is nonetheless subject to federal regulation, because his actions “affect” Interstate Commerce.

(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; govtabuse; hamilton; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: BroJoeK

“If It’s Mises, You Know It’s Craptastic”


41 posted on 01/09/2018 4:08:05 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; Pelham

“When were their fears fulfilled?”

When the Federal Register surpassed one million, six hundred thousand pages.

After that, it was just too difficult for the average person to keep track.


42 posted on 01/09/2018 4:31:37 PM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Even as late as 1909 the progressives were whining that the Constitution is practically unchangeable.

While it is true that Woodrow Wilson cooked up the living and breathing constitution concept in 1908, it wouldn’t become seriously practiced until the New Deal era, and widely practiced until the 50s.


43 posted on 01/09/2018 4:31:45 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot leave history to "the historians" anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mafe; All
Thank you for referencing that article Mafe. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

The bass-ackwards idea that the Constitution was made to expand the federal government’s powers is fake news — an outright lie imo.

From related threads …

More specifically, the Founding States actually made the Constitution to deliberately limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

In fact, note that the founders had established the federal Senate partly to kill bills that not only steal state powers, but also steal state revenues uniquely associated with those powers. This is substantiated by the clarifications of the fed’s limited powers below by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices and other sources.

Consider the second item in the list for example. Regardless that FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor (imo) in 1942, FDR's justices wrongly ignored that 19th century justices had clarified the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers.

The reason that we now have an unconstitutionally big federal government on our backs is this imo.

The problem is that the Progressive Movement successfully spooked low-information citizens to pressure state lawmakers to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), state lawmakers not only unthinkingly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress by doing so, but effectively repealing the whole Constitution imo.

Now, as a consequence of 17A, the corrupt Senate wrongly helps the likewise corrupt House to pass bills that not only steal state powers, but also steal state revenues uniquely associated with those powers, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes as clarified by the excerpt from Gibbons v. Ogden above.

In other words, career lawmakers use 17A to exploit low-information voters, promising such voters federal spending programs and civil rights in exchange for their votes, voters evidently not understanding that the states have never expressly constitutional delegated to the feds the specific power to address the vast majority of domestic issues that the feds are now involved in.

In fact, if a given federal domestic spending program is not reasonably related to the US Mail Service (1.8.7), then citizens can bet that the program is unconstitutional and probably be right most of the time.

The remedy …

Patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots who will be willing to express-lane a constitutional convention for the specific purpose of repealing the 17th Amendment (17A). The 16th Amendment (16A) can disappear too.

Patriots also now need to be working with their state lawmakers to support Pres. Trump in leading the states to repeal 16 & 17A.

For those patriots concerned about a possible overthrow of the country by a pirated ConCon, note that the product of a ConCon is never a new amendment to the Constitution, but a proposed amendment that the states can either reject or ratify.

And until 17A is repealed, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of Alabama's special Senate election, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.

44 posted on 01/09/2018 4:35:57 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

I don’t buy it. The Constitution was re-interpreted by judges to allow Federal government power grabs never intended by the document itself.

As Thomas Jefferson said, the Constotution says exactly what it means. Take it at its original meaning. It is designed for limited national government, and for the states to retain their sovereignty.

Lincoln did away with States rights, then Thurgood Marshall basically tore the Constitution to shreds.


45 posted on 01/09/2018 4:57:34 PM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (What profits a man if he gains the world yet loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius; Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

ping to dry arguments to keep us focused, folks...


46 posted on 01/09/2018 5:21:29 PM PST by bitt (We donÂ’t need an electric chair, we need electric bleachers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

bump for later


47 posted on 01/09/2018 5:23:43 PM PST by Loud Mime (Liberalism: Intolerance masquerading as tolerance, Ignorance masquerading as Intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mafe; Vaquero; All
Perhaps the following essay by Dr. Walter Berns from the 1987 Volume, "Our Ageless Constitution," may be helpful here.

Dr. Berns quotes the Founders themselves.

 

Do We Have
A Living
Constitution?

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and in­dependent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example.

The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature--even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary--is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed.

Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:

Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."

In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.

The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit "within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved.

The Enduring American Constitution

Now, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived.

In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the con­stitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional govern­ment. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein.

Treating The Constitution As
A Thing Without Form or Substance:
New Definitions Of 'Living'

In the language of many today, a "living Constitution" is not first of all one that is long-lived; rather, its longevity is a secondary or derivative quality which is attributed to its "flexibility" or better, its "adaptability." It is this quality--"adaptability"-- that allows it to be "kept in tune with the times," as the members of this school of thought sometimes say. According to them, a living Constitution is first of all a protean constitution - one whose meaning is not fixed, but variable.

In this respect, it is similar to the Constitution as understood by the "judicial power" school. Some judicial power advocates go so far as to say that, until the judges supply it in the process of adjudication, the Constitution has no meaning whatever. Here are the words of judge Lynn D. Compton of California, writing in 1977 in the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

"Let's be honest with the public. Those courts are policy-making bodies. The policies they set have the effect of law because of the power those courts are given by the Constitution. The so-called "landmark decisions" of both of U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court were not compelled by legal precedent. Those decisions are the law and are considered "right" simply because the court had the power to decree the result. The result in any of those cases could have been exactly the opposite and by the same criteria been correct and binding precedent.

"In short, these precedent-setting policy decisions were the products of the social, economic and political philosophy of the majority of the justices who made up the court at a given time in history .."

So extreme a view of judicial power is not likely ever to be expressed in the official reports; there (perhaps in order to be dishonest with the public) even the most inventive judge will claim to be expounding the Constitution, if not its ex­plicit provisions then, at least its emanations, penumbras, or lacunae (Griswold v. Connecticut). What is of interest is that a judge should be willing to express it anywhere - for what it means is that a constitutional provision can be interpreted, but not misinterpreted, construed but not misconstrued. More to the point here is that it means that the Constitution is a living charter of government only because it is repeatedly being reinvented by the judiciary.

The 'Living Constitution' school and the 'Judicial Power' school may be indistinguishable at the margins, but they derive from unrelated and distinct sources. 'Judicial Power' is a product or an extension of legal realism, the school of thought whose advocates, from the beginning of the twentieth century, have argued that the essence of the judicial process consists not in interpreting law, whether statute or constitutional, but in making it. Its advocates today speak with a certain nonchalance of "creating" constitutional rights (Moore v. City of East Cleveland), and, when pressed to cite their authority for doing so are likely to point to the work of contemporary legal theorists like Ronald Dworkin and his book Taking Rights Seriously . It is Dworkin who has purportedly given this sort of "constitutional lawmaking" what it has always lacked ­ a philosophical underpinning. As he sees it, rights cannot be taken seriously until there has been "a fusion of constitutional law and moral theory," and to make it clear that he is not referring to any particular moral theory that may have informed the Constitution as written, he finishes that sentence by saying that that fusion "has yet to take place."

As it turns out, however, the moral theory he propounds, and which he hopes to "fuse" with constitutional law, proves to be nothing more than a fancy way of justifying what the judge Comptons among us have been doing all along. And what they have been doing is, essentially, treating the Constitution as a thing without form or substance, except insofar as it authorizes the judges to give it substance.

The living Constitution school also claims to have a source more venerable than legal realism or Ronald Dworkin - justice John Marshall. A former president of the American Political Science Association argues that the idea of a " 'living Constitution'...can trace its lineage back to John Marshall's celebrated advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs' " The words quoted are certainly Marshall's but the opinion attributed to him is at odds with his well-known statements that, for example, the "principles" of the Constitution "are deemed fundamental [and] permanent" and, except by means of formal amendment, "unchangeable" (Marbury v. Madison). It is important to note that the discrepancy is not Marshall's; it is largely the consequence of the manner in which he is quoted - ellipses are used to join two statements separated by some eight pages in the original text. Marshall did not say that the Constitution should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs; he said that the powers of Congress are adaptable to meet those crises. The first statement appears in that part of his opinion where he is arguing that the Constitution cannot specify "all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit;" if it attempted to do so, it would "partake of the prolixity of a legal code" (McCulloch v. Maryland), In the second statement, Marshall's subject is the legislative power, and specifically the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the explicitly granted powers.

Neither Marshall nor any other prominent members of the founding generation can be 'appropriated' by the living Constitution school to support their erroneous views. Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitution as written.

They were under no illusions that this would prove to be an easy task. Nevertheless, they had reason to believe that they had written a constitution that deserved to endure and, properly guarded, would endure. Hence, Madison spoke out forcefully against frequent appeals to the people for change. Marshall had this Madisonian passage in mind when, in his opinion for the Court in Marbury, he wrote:

At this point, it is well to remember Hamilton's strong warning about unwarranted presumptions by those in government of a power to depart from the people's established form as quoted in the title of this essay.

Marshall referred to the "principles" which he called "permanent," and the "basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected" Yet Marshall also chose to address the much broader issue of the general scope of the national powers. The Constitution must be construed to "...allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." It is these powers, not the Constitution, which are flexible and adaptable to meet the crises of "human affairs."

Ironically, the very case cited by the "living Constitution" school, when properly read, demonstrates that John Marshall, at least, saw, no need for flexibility in the Constitution.

Summary: Do We Have A Living Constitution?

What has been undertaken here has been providing (within a very brief compass indeed) an accurate statement of the principles underlying the American Constitution: pointing to (but by no means elaborating) the political theory from which they derive and the constitutional conclusions to which they lead. Among the latter is the untenability of the proposition that constitutional limitations can be jettisoned, constitutional power enhanced, or the constitutional divi­sion of powers altered, by means other than formal constitutional amendment.

It will not be argued that it may sometimes be convenient to allow the Senate to originate a bill "for raising revenue," but convenience is not a measure of constitutionality. There is much to be said in favor of the legislative veto - Who would, in principle, deny the need of checks on administrative agencies? - but, as the Supreme Court correctly said, the Framers anticipated that Congress might find reason to employ such devices and, when designing the so-called "presentment clause" in Article 1, Section 7, forbade them ( Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha). And from a particular par­tisan perspective it is understandably frustrating, simply because the required number of states had not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, to be denied the power to pro­mote the cause of sexual equality; but frustration alone cannot justify a judicial attempt to preclude the necessity of for­mal ratification, as Justice Brennan is said to have wished to do. In Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677, 1973) the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of whether sex, like race, should be treated as a suspect classification. We are told that Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion in which he proposed to declare classification by sex virtually impermissi­ble and that he knew this would have the effect of "enacting" the pending ERA. "But Brennan was accustomed to having the Court out in front, leading any civil rights movement," a major publication stated. Hence, we are further told, he saw "no reason to wait several years for the states to ratify the amendment." No reason, that is, other than the fact, which Brennan implicitly acknowledged, that the Constitu­tion as then written, and which had not yet been rewritten by the only people authorized to rewrite it, did not support the role he would have the Court hand down.

Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."

We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.

That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.

Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5       (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)

48 posted on 01/09/2018 5:29:34 PM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Bookmark


49 posted on 01/09/2018 6:01:07 PM PST by publius911 (CBS: "Asking the right questions is 100% of catching sexual abusers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Few college graduates today could begin to understand such exquisite English, written to convey both the greatest detail AND breadth and depth of thought imaginable.

A sad loss, the English of then and even that of the 19th century.....

But then, I’m old (72) and white.

So what do I know?


50 posted on 01/09/2018 6:13:08 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mafe
The Articles of Confederation weren't working.

The Constitution lists certain enumerated powers, and prohibits the states from exercising certain powers. Those powers are ALL the power the Federal government is supposed to have. No more.

The Commerce Clause was largely expanded by Wickard v. Filburn, which allowed the Feddies to control how much wheat a farmer could grow so as to prevent it from influencing interstate commerce. But that is not what the Commerce Clause says or intends.

The Framers set up a system of limited powers and diffused powers "to secure the blessings of liberty."

51 posted on 01/09/2018 6:15:29 PM PST by TBP (Progressives lack compassion and tolerance. Their self-aggrandizement is all that matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

Jefferson wanted the country to be run by rich, slave-owning plantation owners. They would use poll taxes and propery requirements to limit voting by the rabble, like they did in the southern states. Jefferson would’ve expanded the power of the federal government as much as required to make this happen.

Hamilton wanted a stable economy that would give all Americans, including immigrants from the Carribean, the opportunity to live the lives they wanted.


52 posted on 01/09/2018 6:28:47 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
Elliot's Debates , Volume 3, page 455 - U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=466&itemLink=?%230030467&linkText=1

---

Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a State, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose; and the enumeration of the particular classes of commerce, to which the power was to be extended, would not have been made, had the intention been to extend the power to every description. The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.
(snip)
This principle is, if possible, still more clear, when applied to commerce "among the several States." They either join each other, in which case they are separated by a mathematical line, or they are remote from each other, in which case other States lie between them. What is commerce "among" them; and how is it to be conducted? Can a trading expedition between two adjoining States, commence and terminate outside of each? And if the trading intercourse be between two States remote from each other, must it not commence in one, terminate in the other, and probably pass through a third? Commerce among the States must, of necessity, be commerce with the States.
Gibbons v. Ogden Chief Justice Marshall, 1824

---

The commerce clause was intended to create a joint jurisdiction between the state and federal governments at points of entry for the purpose of taxation and to give the general government the ability to act as arbitrator in the event two or more state GOVERNMENTS had an issue with one other.

It has nothing to do with the movement of goods between private citizens or businesses.

The person that wrote this is a fool.

53 posted on 01/09/2018 7:21:07 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bitt; All

BUMP for future discussion. Thanks to all posters.


54 posted on 01/09/2018 7:48:53 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

I hate it when the very first sentence is that badly written.


55 posted on 01/09/2018 8:25:51 PM PST by Chuckster ("Them Rag Heads just ain't rational" Curly Bartley 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

A man, a plan, a canal: pandemonium!


56 posted on 01/09/2018 9:50:52 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Bump for later stock


57 posted on 01/09/2018 11:16:12 PM PST by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

Bunch of crap - uses the meme that activist judges and other power grabbers who decided to “reinterpret” the Constitution are using it to usurp the Freedoms it guarantees in order to have it do as it “was designed”.


58 posted on 01/10/2018 3:44:50 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone? I think Trump may give it back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Agree. But way to wordy.


59 posted on 01/10/2018 4:08:40 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
". . . . way too wordy."

Thanks for agreeing on the basic premise, but as to the "way too wordy" observation, 100+ years of Progressive distortion and perverting the Founders' ideas and imposing their own tyrannical ideology on our nation, there is no simple and less "wordy" explanation for the despicable "living constitution" tool than this Dr. Bern piece.

Once worked for a devoted and serious lover of our Constitution who always wanted "executive summaries" of such complex subjects as this one, but, as he found, thanks to the evil ideology which has imposed itself on this nation by devious means, such "summaries" cannot suffice as an ample explanation of the "living constitution" farce imposed on the citizenry.

60 posted on 01/10/2018 8:31:02 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson