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.
Not only that -- If you don't purchase what they're selling you can be arrested for interfering with commerce. By not purchasing, you're blocking "trade". You anti-capitalist, you.
Forget the DEA, we need the CEA (Commerce Enforcement Agency).
Their motto? "Buy or Die"
The intent of the clause was not to facilitate commerce, but the protect the rights of those involved in interstate commerce. IOWs to regulate so as to maintain justice and fairness in the marketplace.
LeRoy is but one hedonist pro-druggie among many. I personally would be happy to debate you on your support of the Assault Weapons Ban if you'd like.
Nah. I consider it educating people on Constitutional issues.
Huh? Dude my reply #17 was tongue in cheek sarcasm, that Libertarians care about one thing and one thing only, drug legalization.
Get back to me when you can understand the concept of sarcasm.
But so few of us pro-druggies on FR are Libertarians. Why do you attempt to suggest otherwise?
It was on a Limbaugh thread that degemnerated into a WOD thread.
Maybe the states should have opted for the "few and defined" rather than the "numerous and indefinite." ;-)
"Message to Congress: Don't do us any favors," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.
"Yes, a law that permanently disconnects dinnertime telemarketers may make some Americans cheer. But Libertarians realize that not every minor irritant requires a new federal law -- and realize that legislation-happy politicians are more of an annoyance than pesky telemarketers will ever be."
The bill, HR 232, was filed by Rep. Peter King (R-NY). It would ban all telemarketing between 5:00 and 7:00 pm, and would require telemarketers to inform people at the beginning of any call that they can be placed on a "Do Not Call" list.
While the bill may strike a responsive chord among Americans who hate the sound of a ringing telephone during dinner, said Dasbach, HR 232 should be rejected because:
* It isn't necessary.
"Advances in technology have given Americans new weapons to fight irritating telemarketers," said Dasbach. "Answering machines allow you to screen your calls. Caller ID allows you to see who is calling. Call blocking allows you to permanently reject certain kinds of calls.
"And if those techniques fail, a polite 'no thank you' and a quick hang-up are all that's needed to send unwanted telemarketers packing. You don't need a new federal law -- or a new category of federal crime -- to beat telemarketers."
* It unfairly restricts free enterprise.
Bill banning dinnertime telemarketing may be popular, but it's not needed
Oh BTW, I know with the above post, I have "technically" contradicted myself, with my previous remarks that Libertarians only care about drug legalization, but life is not based on technicalties, kinda of like the life that Barbara Boxer leads when she votes against a partial birth abortion ban, because to her all abortion has to be kept legal. Not that much different than the Libertarian view on drugs, IMO.
Look Dane, I used "diatribe"! Too subtle for ya?
Kinda like how you call pro-drug FReepers "Libertarians" even though "technically" they are not.
The above should read(to clear up any misunderstandings that Libertarians may have).
Oh BTW, I know with the above post, I have "technically" contradicted myself, with my previous remarks that Libertarians only care about drug legalization, but life is not based on technicalties, not like the life that Barbara Boxer leads when she votes against a partial birth abortion ban, because to her all abortion has to be kept legal. Not that much different than the Libertarian view on drugs, IMO.
That was mean, but I am admittedly laughing out loud.
What Libertarians have shown up on this thread thusfar?
Huh, can you show me where the phrase BS and sarcasm are linked in a Thesaurus.
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.