Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
I've rejected accepting the assertion that it is without any evidence to back it up. I have evidence that it isn't.
From Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution
§ 1075. The reasoning, by which the doctrine is maintained, that the power to regulate commerce cannot be constitutionally applied, as a means, directly to encourage domestic manufactures, has been in part already adverted to in considering the extent of the power to lay taxes. It is proper, however, to present it entire in its present connexion. It is to the following effect.--The constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers; and none of them can be rightfully exercised beyond the scope of the objects, specified in those powers. It is not disputed, that, when the power is given, all the appropriate means to carry it into effect are included. Neither is it disputed, that the laying of duties is, or may be an appropriate means of regulating commerce. But the question is a very different one, whether, under pretence of an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, congress may in fact impose duties for objects wholly distinct from commerce. The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. It is notorious, that, in the convention, an attempt was made to introduce into the constitution a power to encourage manufactures; but it was withheld. Instead of granting the power to congress, permission was given to the states to impose duties, with the consent of that body, to encourage their own manufactures; and thus, in the true spirit of justice, imposing the burthen on those, who were to be benefited. It is true, that congress may, incidentally, when laying duties for revenue, consult the other interests of the country. They may so arrange the details, as indirectly to aid manufactures. And this is the whole extent, to which congress has ever gone until the tariffs, which have given rise to the present controversy. The former precedents of congress are not, even if admitted to be authoritative, applicable to the question now presented.
I read through the entirety of what you posted. What it defends is ‘state imposts and excises’.
What it does not defend is your thesis that the federal government cannot regulate imposts and excises.
Still waiting for some language from the constitution which says this, btw. I’ve been quoting the consitution all the time, and amazingly enough, you still haven’t cottoned on. :)
Not if it means accepting that I only have the rights that are explicitly spelled out in the BOR, and that the federal government was granted all the powers except those that are explicitly denied in the BOR.
“If you allow for abortions, then you are pro-abortion. It’s that simple.”
Wrong, but simple.
We “allow” for smoking, that does not make us “pro” smoking; we “allow” for gambling, that does not make us “pro” gambling; we allow for alchohol, that does not make us “pro” alchohol: we even “allow” for pornography, that does not make us “pro” pornography.
It’s a legal position, not a moral position.
I'm not as much libertarian as I am republican, and not willing to let the republic be collateral damage in your war with the libertarians. You cannot and apparently have no intention of even trying to comprehend the unintended consequences of the means you want to use to wage it.
I have more respect for libertarians than moderate republicans.
At least libertarians have consistant principles instead of lefty cause de jour.
At least libertarians have consistant principles instead of lefty cause de jour.
I'm not a "moderate" republican, and I don't respect any man for resorting to name calling and personal attacks.
Well, from where I sit all the lefties are cheering their victories and are very happy their camel has it’s nose under the tent.
Do you not see this?
Do you not see this?
From where I sit, they were doing that 70 years ago. Now the camel is most of the way into the tent, and you still can't see it.
So why are you fighting today’s battle for them?
1. There's already an oversupply. Anyone, anywhere in the US can get pot anytime they want. Adding more supply to an over-saturated market will not increase demand. If that were the case, all GM would have to do is double or triple the number of Volts they produce.
2. Given that each adult can have 6 marijuana plants at one time in their home, there are potentially hundreds of thousands of mom & pop operations. That's a lot of money that will be denied to the cartels and corrupt drug warriors.
3. The feds would be stymied against hundreds of thousands of small time growers, each selling a few ounces here and there. Simple economics and the current weak economy almost guarantee that will happen.
4.Drug warriors begin to see that their multi-decade scam is going up in smoke.
5. #4 is funny, I don't care who you are.
1. Which is why the established interests, “ie, cartels”, have an interest in regulating the supply. ;)
2. “That’s a nice little plantation you’ve got growing there. Be a shame to have something happen to it.”
What will happen is that the ‘small mom and pop’ growers you envisage will sell to the cartels. Start selling your own and try to cut out the middle man - watch as they shut you down.
3. Economies of scale guarantee just the opposite. Growing just 6 is uneconomical to produce.
If your claims had any validity, you'd expect the cartels to have done something about it. The program has been in place for 15 years. What are they waiting for?
please.
Just ban it. Economic effects? Are you kidding? Broken Window Theory again, that money would have been spent on something anyway, spending it on pot doesn’t do any more good than spending it on Twinkies.
I guess you could use the same explanation for meth, cocaine, heroin, kiddie porn etc etc etc
Still wouldn’t make sense.
Reagan had a seat at the table for the libertarians, naturally, as he comes from among them.
And here on FR, it is the Reaganites who are most likely to be found in the company of the libertarians. It is the Neocons that prefer the libertarians thrown out of the bus and off of FR.
No Reaganite I know would make the comments you have - And it is folks like you that caused me to leave the Republican party behind. And MANY Conservatives stood among our libertarian friends on voting day... voting for 3rd party or abstaining on the basis of OUR consciences too.
So as you blame them, blame me too, for all the good it will do you. If you field candidates that do not stand for Conservative principles, Conservatives won't turn out to vote - And that includes libertarians. The last two elections the republican offering was not only unable to stand for our principles, but were actually enemies to our causes... opposing our principles.
It is the height of idiocy to expect folks to vote for you if you stand to oppose them. You trippin', d00d.
But who cares about fedgov overstepping their constitutional bounds, right?
OK, the states should make being a stupid liberaltarian a death panalty offense. I suppose that would be permitted under this crazy ideal??
_____________________________________________________________
*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
**See Privileges or Immunities Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
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.