Posted on 08/04/2006 9:03:45 PM PDT by traviskicks
Well, I don't completely agree with that. Interstate commerce is something the Federal government has a valid right and reason to get involved with.
We currently have a wide variety of regulations that declare people to be criminals for doing things that were undertaken with absolutely no criminal intent or objectively discernibly criminality.
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
You just made my point. The federal government regulates interstate commerce for the reason that it keeps importing states(i.e. states that were on the coast) from levying taxes that non-importing states would eventually have to pay through the increase in price. Basically the importing state benefits while the non-importing state essentially pays the tax.
I'm afraid I don't see it as being that simple. Yes, people used and sold drugs before the goverment controlled them. I don't believe that someone buying opiates, for example, to treat their own pain before it was regulated was necessarily a criminal, nor was the person selling them provided he wasn't misrepresenting what he was selling. That same transaction, post-regulation would be considered criminal, yet involves no more criminal intent than it did originally.
To say that the government only codifies what is already objectively criminal and doesn't create any "collateral damage" in the process is not realistic.
How much of the current regulation we live under by bureaucracies authorized under the Commerce Clause - the DEA, EPA, OSHA, and others can be said to be in pursuit of that objective - keeping one state from unfairly benefiting from taxes and levies at the expense of another?
I think that that was made as an example (one of possibly many) that validated the federal government's responsiblity in interstate commerce.
I think you're making some unsupportable assumptions. Read Madison's letter again. In all of the historical record of the debates and discussion during the process of drafting and ratifying the Constitution, preventing the States from using taxes, levies or other contrivances to give themselves a trade advantage over other states is the only purpose for granting the power to regulate commerce among the several states that is discussed or expressed. For the first 150 years, this is how it was used. Our current "substantial effects" doctrine is the product of FDR and the New Deal courts - explicitly derived from a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution.
I am not disagreeing that that is the only reason he stated in his letter. I am simply saying that there "may have been", and still are, more reasons for such regulation. If the feds regulate interstate commerce, than conflicts in trade between states is obviously minimized. Also, since any legislation on that level would have to be passed by representatives of the States, than it makes it not only efficient but a valid form of regulation.
What was "intended" be damned. I rest my case.
-Justice Clarence Thomas
Pay attention, or kiss the Republic goodbye.
Well, in light of this citation I have to agree with you. There may be many circumstances where the states should retain authority in interstate commerce. And policing that commerce. This statement makes very good sense, thank you for presenting it.
I will agree that as things change there may be some areas where it is appropriate to grant Congress that power but it isn't supposed to be convenient or easy. The process of amendment is there to modify the balance of power between the States and the general government. It isn't supposed to be "efficient", and it is that way on purpose and for good reasons. The idea that simply because a majority of Congress voted for it and the President signed off on it is sufficient to make it a valid exercise of the ommerce power is an abject subversion of that intent.
I thought Constitutional amendments had to be ratified by the states. In any case I agree with your assessment. I too think the Feds have WAY too much power, especially in Law Enforcement and Education. Oh, and now Commerce. Thanks for the enlightenment.
You're welcome. And yes, a Constitutional amemdment does have to be ratified by the States.
The States created the federal government, and transferred to it a limited set of powers in order for it to accomplish specific objectives. Those powers were fixed at the time the Constitution was ratified, as they were understood and intended by those who wrote and ratified the empowering document. They can only be legitimately modified by the States, since they are the source of the original grant of power and all powers not transferred remain with the States.
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.