Posted on 12/06/2004 7:03:14 PM PST by JOHN W K
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.