Posted on 12/06/2004 7:03:14 PM PST by JOHN W K
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
12-05-04
To those who support our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government“, Raich v. Ashcroft is not about “medical Marijuana” but rather, the case presents a chance to correct a despotic decision made by the SCOTUS in 1942 concerning Congress’ power to regulate commerce in which the Court gave a new meaning to the word “commerce” in order to allow part of FDR’s NEW DEAL socialism [price controls] to pass as being constitutional, when it was not.
The following article is worth reading, and can be found at findlaw.com.
The author of the above article makes reference to a precedent setting case, Wickard v. Filburn, with regard to Congress’ power to regulate commerce, a power which today is used by Congress to interfere with almost ever aspect of our lives and which is the subject of my writing.
I am hoping the following will help to expose the despotic nature of the Supreme Court’s decision in 1942, and perhaps help to undue what it did___ subjugate the legislative intent for which Congress was given power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes“
The reasoning given by the Court in Wickard v. Filburn, allowing regulation to institute price controls, is totally absurd on its face and contrary to both the spirit and legislative intent for which Congress was granted the power in question.
The reasoning in Wickard, authorizing Congress to fine a farmer for growing wheat on his property was, that if many farmers planted, grew, and used wheat for their own families consumption within the various states, it would have an “effect” on commerce “among” the states, and therefore, the writers of our federal Constitution, and the various states when ratifying the Constitution, intended to have the Congress of the United States regulate the growth of wheat within the various state borders and allow federal legislation to punish a farmer with a financial penalty for growing wheat on his property without Congress‘ approval!
Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? If the logic of the Court was not so obviously intended to subjugate and undermine the limited power our founding fathers intended by the grant of power to regulate commerce, it would be laughable. But it is not laughable because the Court, in rendering its decision, was intentionally acting to subvert the intentions of our founding fathers and those who ratified the constitution in order to assist in the imposition of FDR’s NEW DEAL…a deal in which the servant becomes the master over those who created a servant___ a deal in which folks in government [agents of the strong and powerful] are set free to ignore the four corners of the constitution and impose their will upon the people of the United States without their consent.
The most fundamental principle of constitutional law as stated by Jefferson is:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Jeffeson in a letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
So, the immediate question the Court was to answer in the Wickard case was, what was the intent of the framers and ratifiers in granting the power to Congress. What was it that the people, meaning you [the reader] wanted to accomplish when delegating the power in question to Congress?
Search the case in question [Wickard], follow the cases cited, and you will find insufficient documentation from the historical record of the framing and ratification process of our Constitution to support what the Court concluded. As a matter of fact, the historical record documents the Court did in fact engage in an outright subjugation of our constitutional system and did so by an intentional misrepresentation of the meaning of the word “commerce” as used in our constitution.
The word commerce, as used in the constitution, and as documented in the historical records during the framing and ratification process is found to mean trade. The word commerce, as the founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process, did not mean the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products, the production process by which articles of consumption are created, or, similar economic enterprise carried on within the various state borders.
In fact, the term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers, appears to be almost synonymous with trade or the exchange of goods, and is interchangeable in almost every context in which the founding fathers used the word “commerce” during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution.
From a research of the historical record, it appears to be irrefutable that the word commerce was in fact intentionally meant by our founding fathers, and used by them in their speeches and debates, to refer to trade___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B.
You can find this truth yourself by doing a word search [what a God send are these modern day contrivances called computers] for “commerce” in the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes,Elliot’s Debates, etc., and, the truth suddenly jumps from the pages of these historical records and instructs us that the SCOTUS, to assist in a tyrannical imposition of FDR’s New Deal, gave a new meaning, an unintended meaning, to the word commerce as used in the Constitution, and did so to allow Congress to seize regulatory control over various commercial activities within the various state borders: agricultural, manufacturing and almost every other commercial activity one can imagine…a regulatory power having nothing to do with the actual trading and transportation of goods from point A to point B after products of trade are produced within a state’s borders, and which the founding fathers wanted to insure would not be interfered with by the imposition of taxation as they moved from state to state, or, interfered with while being shipped. And thus, the power to regulate commerce among [not within] was granted with this specific intent in mind!
In addition, and to further restrict the power of regulating commerce, the founding fathers also commanded that:
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” [Art. 1, Sec. 9]
As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intent of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
In any event, as I sit here and type, I am astonished to hear that Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, appears to be threatening to use Congress’ delegated power to regulate commerce to compel professional baseball players to give urine samples for drug testing if baseball's commissioner and union chief do not make their own rules concerning the use of steroids among ballplayers.
"Your failure to commit to addressing this issue straight on and immediately will motivate this committee to search for legislative remedies," McCain, told players' union chief Donald Fehr.
How is it possible that our elected public servants, having taken an oath to uphold our Constitution, are so eager to misapply the power to regulate commerce among the states, which is now threaten to be misapplied to regulate drug use among baseball players? ANSWER: the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant!
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
NOTE:
And just what is the lawful extent of Congress’ powers with regard to the people’s activities within the various states? James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us that:
"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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
I'm not really optimistic, but nonetheless hopeful that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the essential federalist structure of the constitution.
Fat chance.
Every single thing we were promised could Never happen in the Federalist Papers (to say nothing about the constitution itself) Has come to pass.
There are no mor depressing documents to read than the Federalist Papers. We have lost SO MUCH!!
The leading case which I believe will be revisited in the decision making process is: UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ The case is a good example to study how the SCOTUS ignored the intent of the Founding Fathers with regard to the power granted [regulation of commerce], which, as I have previously pointed out, was nothing more than to “… insure the free passage of goods between the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s exports as they moved from state to state….”
Over the years, as LOPEZ documents, the Court added new meaning to the limited and intended power granted by the framers and ratifiers, and did so case after case.
In any event, the Court stated the following in Lopez and did harness Congress’ so called power to regulate commerce among the states
: Within this final category, admittedly, our case law has not been clear whether an activity must "affect" or "substantially affect" interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. Compare Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 17 (1990), with Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27 (the Court has never declared that "Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities"). We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce.
The Court then concluded:
To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 8. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.
So, let us hope that the Court once again identifies the real question and refuses to allow Congress to interfere with the internal affairs of the various states which our constitution intended to prevent, not allow.
Regards,
JWK
ACRS
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967)
Absolutely WRONG - buy a clue, buddy!
Individual states passed those laws through economic blackmail via "revenue sharing".
IIRC the origonal 55MPH rule came out of the Carter Admin. during it's gas crisis. It was limited to a couple of years. After it sundowned, the Fed. Gov't. started it's economic blackmail of the states.
On second thought, it may even have been during the Ford Admin.
revenue sharing = federal road funds
Every human action has a ripple effect touching on every other human action, including commerce.
Therefore any legislation is permitted under the commerce clause.
You can gain everything back by voting straight libertarian ticket every election and convince as many people as you can to do the same like i do.The federalist papers is where the libertarians get thier party platform.
a this could have been written more clearly so I'll have to come back and read it later bookmark.
It was upheld based on COmmerce Clause. South Dakota challenged the federal blackmail of witholding highway money and the SCOTUS upheld the Fed's view.
The way you described it? Sure does.
Then again, the way you described it leaves out a few facts, now doesn't it?
No. The 55mph national speed limit was established by Nixon who signed the bill and it went into effect under Ford. Wage and price controls were a Nixon thing too. Carter didn't create Nixon's economic and energy mess, however, he did manage to make it much worse.
William Jefferson "Speedy" Clinton did sign the bill repealing the 55mph speed limit. It may have been the high point of his administration.
Interesting.....
Hah! You're looking for a constitutional solution for what is a political problem.
You want to turn a "Congress shouldn't do that" into a "Congress can't do that" because it's much easier to claim helplessness than to vote the bastards out of office.
Every two years you have this wonderful opportunity to vote for the people who write our laws. If you believe Congress is abusing their authority, vote them out. If you don't like the law that Congress is writing, vote them out.
No, you'd rather sit at your keyboard and whine that this is a constitutional matter, an abuse of the Commerce Clause. The courts are misinterpreting the constitution -- we're helpless to do anything about it.
Get a grip.
Oh, and ask yourself one thing. If Madison's "original intent" of the Commerce Clause was to remove state-imposed trade barriers, why did he not include a clause in Art. I Sec. 10 prohibiting the states from impairing traffic or navigation, or regulating commerce, with another state or a foreign nation or the Indian tribes?
Yes, of course. Let's find one implied contradiction, and focus solely on asking ouselves that one single question to the exclusion of all the other evidence. That'll get to the truth of the matter, for sure.
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.