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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 241-258 next last
To: Beelzebubba
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?
To: Dane
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.
To: Beelzebubba
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. ;-)
63
posted on
11/05/2003 9:59:19 AM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Me caigo a mis rodillas y hablo a las estrellas de plata. "¿Qué misterios usted está encubriendo?")
To: Dane
To: philman_36
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.
65
posted on
11/05/2003 10:03:24 AM PST
by
Dane
To: Dane
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.
To: Dane
Good morning jack booted thug. Isn't it an excellent day
To: Dane
Et tu, Dane?
So I'm a Communist?
And he never gives an answer .....
To: philman_36
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.
69
posted on
11/05/2003 10:14:42 AM PST
by
Dane
To: Dane
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 .
70
posted on
11/05/2003 10:17:17 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
To: CWOJackson; philman_36
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.
71
posted on
11/05/2003 10:19:37 AM PST
by
Dane
To: Labyrinthos
what would be the constitutional basis for the civil rights laws as applied to individuals?
-laby-
The 14th amendment.
Aren't you a lawyer?
72
posted on
11/05/2003 10:21:37 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
To: Dane; philman_36
Are you sure philman is a member of the LP?
73
posted on
11/05/2003 10:23:01 AM PST
by
jmc813
(Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
To: Dane; CWOJackson
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?
To: jmc813
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.
75
posted on
11/05/2003 10:27:03 AM PST
by
Dane
To: jmc813; Dane
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.
To: philman_36
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!
To: Dane
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?
78
posted on
11/05/2003 10:29:47 AM PST
by
jmc813
(Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
To: Dane; jmc813
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?
To: CWOJackson; Dane
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson