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

Skip to comments.

Commerce clause abuse
TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 11/04/2003 10:08:00 PM PST by JohnHuang2

Several weeks ago, under the title "Is It Permissible?" I discussed how Congress systematically abuses the Constitution's "welfare clause" to control our lives in ways that would have been an abomination to the Framers. Quite a few readers pointed to my omission of Congress' companion tool to circumvent both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, namely the "Commerce Clause."

The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 gives Congress authority "To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." During the war, the 13 colonies formed a union under the Articles of Confederation (1778) whereby "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." The Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain recognized 13 sovereign nations.

A key failing of the Articles of Confederation was the propensity of states to erect protectionist trade barriers. When the Framers met in Philadelphia in 1787 and wrote the constitution that governs us today, they addressed that failure through the commerce and the privileges and immunities clauses that created a national free-trade zone.

Thus, the original purpose of the Commerce Clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn't intend for the Commerce Clause to govern so much of our lives.

Indeed, as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

For most of our history, the Courts foiled congressional attempts to use the "Commerce Clause" to sabotage the clear meaning of the Constitution, particularly the Ninth and 10th Amendments. The courts began caving in to congressional tyranny during the 1930s. That tyranny was sealed in 1942, by a little known U.S. Supreme ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn.

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. He was fined anyway. The court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat -- therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.

If there's any good news, it's the tiny step the U.S. Supreme Court took in its in U.S. Vs. Lopez (1995) ruling. In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act, citing its powers under the "Commerce Clause." Namely, the possession of a firearm in a local school zone substantially affected interstate commerce.

Why? Violent crime raises insurance costs, and those costs are spread throughout the population. Violent crime reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to high-crime areas within the country. Finally, crime threatens the learning environment, thereby reducing national productivity.

While all of this might be true, the relevant question is whether Congress had constitutional authority to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it didn't, saying, "If we were to accept the government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate."

In other words, the hours children spend studying, the amount of rest they get and what they eat have something to do with learning. Congress could easily manufacture a case for the regulation of these activities based on its perverted interpretation of the "Commerce Clause."

While the Lopez ruling is a tiny step in the right direction, there's much more to be done. Constitution-respecting Americans should demand the impeachment of congressmen and other elected officials who ignore their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; walterwilliams; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-258 next last
To: philman_36
You spout off Socialist rhetoric yourself and yet you say you're a Republican. What gives?

My, my, the self proclaimed politcally non-aligned person is all of the sudden an expert.

JMO, but learn some humilty, it may do you some good.

101 posted on 11/05/2003 10:53:02 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It seems that you all who take up the Libertarian torch are not only bereft of humilty, but bereft of short term memory(I.E your reply #88 of this thread).
I'm not taking up any Libertarian torch. I happen to agree with the LP on a particular thing. This in no way indicates that I'm carrying anyone's torch.
And if you want to play the insinuation game then you've taken up the Democrat's torch on the 2nd Amend., making yourself bereft of humility and basic common sense.
What about my reply 88 indicates that I'm bereft of short term memory?
If you're going to talk about short term memory loss maybe you need to go back and review some of the things you've done.
102 posted on 11/05/2003 10:55:53 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
I have the EXACT same opinion on the drug war as the owner of this site. End the Federal WOD and let the states decide for themselves what their drug policy is. With the exception of pot, I am wary of legalizing hard drugs. Is Jim politically confused?

Why do you find it necessary to hide behind Jim? Are you that insecure about your own political beliefs?

103 posted on 11/05/2003 10:57:07 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dane
My, my, the self proclaimed politcally non-aligned person is all of the sudden an expert.
I've never claimed to be an expert of any kind. Nice try.
You're such an expert that you claim I'm a Libertarian when I'm not. So much for your expertise.
You having fun yet? I know I am.
104 posted on 11/05/2003 10:58:01 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
And if you want to play the insinuation game then you've taken up the Democrat's torch on the 2nd Amend., making yourself bereft of humility and basic common sense

And I have taken up the demo position on the 2nd amendment, how?

Please elucidate me with your infinite wisdom and evidence.

105 posted on 11/05/2003 11:00:01 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Why do you find it necessary to hide behind Jim?

Because it's funny watching you and Jackson backtrack from your claims when I bring up that he and I have the same philosiphy on the WOD.

Are you that insecure about your own political beliefs?

Heck no. Ask me my opinion on anything and I'll be happy to give it to you.

106 posted on 11/05/2003 11:00:09 AM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And I have taken up the demo position on the 2nd amendment, how?

The AWB was authored by Democrats.

107 posted on 11/05/2003 11:01:22 AM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; CWOJackson
Because it's funny watching you and Jackson backtrack from your claims when I bring up that he and I have the same philosiphy on the WOD.

This thread isn't about making you laugh. It is about you posting your own opinions and not hiding behind anyone else when making your arguement.

But go ahead, if you think this is all a big joke, that is your right as an American to have.

108 posted on 11/05/2003 11:03:35 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
The AWB was authored by Democrats

And it has gone through the Pubbie House, how?

109 posted on 11/05/2003 11:04:41 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And I have taken up the demo position on the 2nd amendment, how?
You do believe that the Assault Weapons Ban should continue, don't you?
Please elucidate me with your infinite wisdom.
110 posted on 11/05/2003 11:04:48 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You do believe that the Assault Weapons Ban should continue, don't you? Please elucidate me with your infinite wisdom

Read reply #109.

Whew you non-yet in spirit-Libertarians are so predictable.

111 posted on 11/05/2003 11:07:50 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Dane
You do believe that the Assault Weapons Ban should continue, don't you?
Whew you non-yet in spirit-Libertarians are so predictable
Your refusal to answer the question is so predictable.
112 posted on 11/05/2003 11:09:34 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Your refusal to answer the question is so predictable

And the renewal of AWB has been proposed how?

I answered the question. Looks like you just want to have an issue.

Dude you are morphing into Hillary, with each and every one of your posts, IMO.

113 posted on 11/05/2003 11:11:43 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
"Regulate" seems more broad than "facilitate."

The commonly understood meaning of "regulate" at the time the Constitution was written was "to keep in good working order", as in "to regulate a clock".

You can find lengthy discussions and articles about this on many RKBA sites in reference to the meaning of "a well regulated militia".

114 posted on 11/05/2003 11:12:47 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Was the House even controlled by Repubs when it passed?
115 posted on 11/05/2003 11:13:46 AM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Read reply #109.
I did.
And it has gone through the Pubbie House, how?
That in no way answers my direct question. It wasn't a question about what others have or have not done. I'm asking for your opinion, even though I think most of your opinions suck.
It is about you posting your own opinions and not hiding behind anyone else when making your arguement.
And yet you hide behind the Pubbie House and refuse to share your "opinion" when you're usually so free in giving your opinions!
116 posted on 11/05/2003 11:13:48 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
"So far my rights to purchase any firearm I desire has not been infringed."

And we all know that your desires should be the desires of everyone else. Just like most WOD supporters, I see. Did the founding fathers write anywhere that the 2nd only applies to everyone as long as they succomb to CWO's desires?

I do appreciate your humor on this thread!
117 posted on 11/05/2003 11:14:13 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
That in no way answers my direct question. It wasn't a question about what others have or have not done. I'm asking for your opinion, even though I think most of your opinions suck

Uh dude, your "direct" question is not based in reality. When the Pubbie House(with Tom Delay as Majority leader) votes on an extension of the AWB ban get back to me, OK. Deal?

118 posted on 11/05/2003 11:16:36 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And the renewal of AWB has been proposed how?
You've got to be kidding!
Here is your proposed renemal...Senator Feinstein, others, Introduce Legislation to Reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban
They not only want to reauthorize, they want to expand it!
Now, answer the question...You do believe that the Assault Weapons Ban should continue, don't you?
Dude you are morphing into Hillary, with each and every one of your posts, IMO.
Dude you are morphing into Hillary, with each and every one of your posts, in that you always refuse to answer a question. Don't you recall? Can't you remember?
119 posted on 11/05/2003 11:21:01 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Was the House even controlled by Repubs when it passed?

Nope, it was controlled by the demos as was the Senate.

120 posted on 11/05/2003 11:22:00 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-258 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