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.
Yes I am. The 14th Amendment applies to state action in that it prohibits a state and its political subdivisions from discriminating based upon race, national origin, religion etc. and that's the basis for 42 USCS 1981 et seq. I'm talking about that part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits me from dicriminating in the operation of my private business, the sale/rental of private housing, the service of food in a private restaurant, and the letting of rooms in a private inn or other place of accommodation.
Uh I didn't smear anybody.
You smeared yourself by leaving out the last verse of the song "Fool on the Hill" in your reply #56.
This whole exchange is interesting, because it shows that those who take up the torch of the Libertarian cause, are bereft of the concept of humility, IMO.
Have you straightened yourself out on the Second Amendment as well?
Perhaps when the man starts kicking in my door in their illegal no-knock raids I'll change my mind.
But I don't want to get distracted from my crusade to assist the meth lab running freedom fighters!
Die Honkey!
Burn baby burn!
Hell no we won't go!
Give me liberty and give me meth!
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out how the commerce clause is used to justify lawsthat have nothing to do directly with interstate commerce. BTW, the equal protection clause does not provide a constitutional predicate for the civil rights act as enforced against the private sector, because the 14th Amendment only prohibits the states and their political subdivisions from depriving a person of equal protection of the laws.
IOW, you are now a victim of that mean old Dane.
LOL! Whew dude, keep on posting, you are posting Hillary's case with each and every one of your posts, IMO.
And he never gives an answer .....
And he(Dane) never gives an answer ....
In all honesty, I believe that Jeff(jmc813) is a bit politically confused. He spouts off George Soros rhetoric, and yet says he's a Republican.
For the time being I will give Jeff the benefit of the doubt.
LOL! LOL! 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).
He spouts off George Soros rhetoric, and yet says he's a Republican.
You spout off Socialist rhetoric yourself and yet you say you're a Republican. What gives?
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.