The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit

randybarnett.com ^ | 6/9/05 | Randy Barnett

[robertpaulsen]

"The power to regulate does not generally include the power to prohibit."

Weasel words.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen wrote:

So Congress doesn't have the power to prohibit commerce with foreign nations?

Odd ideas you have bobby. -- Sure, Congress has the power to declare a commercial war, but not one against its own citizens rights.

[P_A_I]

Read Barnetts whole essay, paulsen.

Calling him a weasel makes you look like one.

[inquest]

Read on. He then goes on to say why his "wish" wouldn't fit the country's needs.

[robertpaulsen]

So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations gives Congress the power to prohibit -- but the power to regulate commerce among the several states does not give Congress the power to prohibit.

Uh-huh.

[bvw]

Hooray for Randy Barnett! Gold veins in old mines re-tapped!

[P_A_I]

inquest wrote:

Read on. He then goes on to say why his "wish" wouldn't fit the country's needs.

That's not the thrust of his general argument, however.
You don't agree with that argument, so you're nitpicking the issue, as usual, in order to avoid the real issue:

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

[robertpaulsen]

The natural state of commerce is perfect freedom.

Consequently, any "regulation" of commerce implies some sort of restriction or prohibition. We "regulate" alcohol to prohibit its use by those under 21, for example.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen wrote:

So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations gives Congress the [wartime] power to prohibit -- but the power to regulate commerce among the several states does not give Congress the power to prohibit.
Uh-huh.

The 'bold' change is mine..

Your inability to understand Constitutional principles is well established paulsen.. --- Thanks for displaying it yet again.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen wrote:

--- any "regulation" of commerce implies some sort of restriction or prohibition. We "regulate" alcohol to prohibit its use by those under 21, for example.

Barnett's essay exhaustively defines the distinctions between regulations & prohibitions, paulsen.
Why don't you write us a blistering critique?

[bvw]

You did the essay on driver and auto licenses, right?

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[robertpaulsen]

"So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations gives Congress the [wartime] power to prohibit."

The 'bold' change is yours ... your mistake.

Look up Jefferson's 1807 Embargo against England and France. We weren't at war with them then.

And Jefferson's Secretary of State at the time was the man who wrote the Constitution. You think he would have said somehing about that, huh?

[inquest]

That's not the thrust of his general argument, however.

It's exactly his argument.

[P_A_I]

We aren't at war with Cuba either. Yet we have an arguably legal embargo.

-- As usual, like inquest, you want to nitpick over details while you ignore the Constitutional issues.

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

[inquest]

Don't ping me to replies to other people. If you disagree with something I said, you're free to state your grounds for doing so in a response to my post. Otherwise, you're just playing stupid games out of frustration, and it's frankly very childish.

[P_A_I]

Your last post to me at #34 was a childish 'neener -neener' nonresponse.
And I stated my reason for pinging both you & paulsen to the same post. You're acting like twins in your nitpicking attempted diversions.

[inquest]

Your last post to me at #34 was a childish 'neener -neener' nonresponse.

You wouldn't be the type to hold yourself to a lower standard than everyone else you deal with, would you? My post was no more "childish" than the unsupported statement of yours that I was responding to.

If you have anything further to say on the matter (like backing your statement up), then feel free to let me know.

And I stated my reason for pinging both you & paulsen to the same post.

I couldn't care less what your "reason" was. Don't ping me to replies to other people. It's not that difficult a concept.

[P_A_I]

Look, if you can't stand the heat of posting, - and replies, - get out of the kitchen. Your 'no ping' demand is childish.

[traviskicks]

Perhaps you and some other constitution experts might find this interesting. A theory of state vs federal powers and overall government power (articles of Confederation vs. Constitution etc..). Comparisons are also made to the present day EU constitution and a brief theory on the Bill of Rights.

http://www.neoperspectives.com/europeanconstitution.htm