Commerce clause abuse

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

[Labyrinthos]

Here's how I think of it: The Commerce Clause was written to PREVENT governmental impediments to free commerce (e.g. state tarrifs). Now it is being used as the prime enablement of governmental impediments to commerce, precisely contrary to the original intent of protecting freedom of commerce.

The vast majority of the Civil Rights Laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, restaurants, and places of public accommodation and other businesses open to the public is based upon the Commerce Clause. If not the Commerce Clause, then what would be the constitutional basis for the civil rights laws as applied to individuals?

[philman_36]

And the line you omitted is at the end of the song.
The link omitted it, not I.
Whew dude, you think that you are a demo or something, that a liberal media on FR is going to protect from your obvious omission.
My you're really reaching today! First a "comrade, now a "demo"...
Here ya go...a link with your precious "last verse". I still don't see how the fool wins in the end.

[Scenic Sounds]

Here's how I think of it: The Commerce Clause was written to PREVENT governmental impediments to free commerce (e.g. state tarrifs).

Now it is being used as the prime enablement of governmental impediments to commerce, precisely contrary to the original intent of protecting freedom of commerce.

I hear what you're saying, but the language of the Constitution doesn't manifest that narrow a purposee:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"Regulate" seems more broad than "facilitate."

Is it okay for a court to depart from the language used if the court believes that the "original intent" warrants the departure? Who should they consider when trying to determine the "original intent" of a provision? The guy who drafted it? The members of the Constitutiional Convention, or just the ones who voted in favor of the Constitution? Should we also consider the views of the members of the State ratifying conventions, and, if so, which ones? How can a court pick and choose among varying "original intents"?

These are some of the problems that a court faces when we ask them to actively intervene to limit the power of our elected Congress. ;-)

[philman_36]

"he never listens to them, because he knows that they are the fools"
Oops, here you go...He never listens to them he knows that they're the fools
they don't like him

And the line that you omitted is at the very end of the song. Whew dude, you think that you are a demo or something, that a liberal media on FR is going to protect from your obvious omission.

[Dane]

Here ya go...a link with your precious "last verse". I still don't see how the fool wins in the end

Uh maybe, the ones who knee jerkingly throw out calling someone a fool, are the fools themselves.

I know that is a hard concept for you to grasp, but I wasn't the one who started out with the ad hominems.

My posts started out with my opinions about the political positions of Libertarians.

Oh that's right my opinions automatically sucked to you, nevermind. You and Hillary come from the same mindset, IMO. Elitism run amuck.

[philman_36]

Uh maybe, the ones who knee jerkingly throw out calling someone a fool, are the fools themselves.
Uh maybe, the ones who knee jerkingly throw out calling someone Polythene Pam, are Polythene Pam themselves.

[CWOJackson]

Good morning jack booted thug. Isn't it an excellent day

[philman_36]

Et tu, Dane?
So I'm a Communist?

And he never gives an answer .....

[Dane]

Uh maybe, the ones who knee jerkingly throw out calling someone Polythene Pam, are Polythene Pam themselves

Uh, I didn't knee jerkingly call you Polythene Pam in my reply #44. I asked a question since you quoted the lyrics from "Mean Mister Mustard" in your reply #43.

And any Beatle afficinado knows that Mean Mister Mustard and Polythene Pam were siblings.

[tpaine]

Dane my boy, the only way to counter some of ~your~ rhetoric is to make the observation that you are quite irrational.

You claim that is ad hominem? -- Yes, it is.. It's also a tough world for the logically challenged .

[Dane]

Good morning jack booted thug. Isn't it an excellent day

Top of the morning to you also CWO, a fellow "JBT", on the west coast.

Yes it is an always excellent day when a "persecuted and so humble Libertarian" is found caught using omissions and acting like his/her cousin, a liberal democrat.

[tpaine]

what would be the constitutional basis for the civil rights laws as applied to individuals?
-laby-

---

The 14th amendment.

Aren't you a lawyer?

[jmc813]

Are you sure philman is a member of the LP?

[philman_36]

Yes it is an always excellent day when a "persecuted and so humble Libertarian" is found caught using omissions and acting like his/her cousin, a liberal democrat.
Quit talking about yoursellf so Dane. they don't like him Et tu, Dane?
And since when are you a Libertarian, CWOJackson? You and I were the only ones you addressed. I know, and Dane knows, that I'm not a Libertarian, so when were you turned?

[Dane]

Are you sure philman is a member of the LP?

Sheesh Jeff, like I said to you before on this thread, stop trying to dig yourself a deeper hole. Phil was caught omitting something pertinent to the conversation, basically using the same the behavior as the liberal democrats, IMO.

[philman_36]

Are you sure philman is a member of the LP?
He knows I'm not as I've told him repeatedly that I'm not a member of any "Party".
Typical Dane tactics, smear by association.

[CWOJackson]

Me?

I woke up one morning and it just struck me, I had to join the crusade to end the unConstitutional WOD! It's curious. I don't use dope and wouldn't use dope even if it were legal. I don't encourage people to use dope and never would even if it were legal. But I have this overwhelming need to fight a crusade to make dope legal.

Another victim of Spontaneous Constitutional Crusade Syndrome...yet another victim of SCC.

Down with the man!

[jmc813]

Phil was caught omitting something pertinent to the conversation, basically using the same the behavior as the liberal democrats, IMO.

But you're calling him a Libertarian when he is not a member of the LP. Do you consider me a Libertarian even though I am a card-carrying member of my county GOP?

[philman_36]

Phil was caught omitting something pertinent to the conversation, basically using the same the behavior as the liberal democrats, IMO.
Dane too was caught omitting something pertinent to the conversation, basically using the same behavior as the liberal democrats.
What are you, Dane, by your own standards?

[philman_36]

I woke up one morning and it just struck me, I had to join the crusade to end the unConstitutional WOD!
You need to inform Dane of your conversion.