But it is a legitimate one, despite your recasting into your narrow worldview. You would have the government impose trade regulation that would destroy large parts of the US economy, without any fall back position to take up the slack. You would have the livelihoods of all Americans held hostage to the protectionism of corporate patents. You need to find some middle ground here. You are advocating burning down the village to save the village.
Some comments on your interpretation of Art I, 8:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;..."
The key word here is "regulate". I asked if you would give the Feds "full control over with whom or where its citizens may trade." If your answer is "yes", depending on this clause, then you feel "regulate" can include complete prohibition. Therefore, the Feds, under your interpretation, could ban interstate commerce between California and Arizona, with or without reasons. Is that your position as well?
Then, we get to a case like Cuba or interstate trade in illegal drugs. I dunno. I think it comes down to the wise exercise of a power. Just because the Fed is empowered to do something doesn't make it automatically a wise solution, which is why I wrote "full power". A power unchecked is ultimately destructive to all it touches.
There is a weird dynamic between the govt. power to regulate commerce and the individual right to property. Each trumps the other at the extremes. How can you have the right to own anything you want if the govt. has the power to ban the buying and selling of things, and vice versa?
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;..."
I see nothing here allowing a corporation to own patents or copyrights, let alone into perpetuity. Only real, flesh and blood people for a limited time. Allowing legal "personhood" to be used by fictional constructs such as corporate entities, is what has led us to much of this problem. In post #56, you wrote about individual traders in foreign markets:
But its all at their own risk. We won't rescue their sorry butts if they lose all their wallets to Chinese or Venezuelan pick-pockets. I.e., their capital investments abroad, are all at-risk. They will be on notice that we won't back them up if they put their money where they shouldn't have invested it.
Why, then, are you willing to protect the corporate interests and risks of MS in foreign trade deals, to the tune of 50% protectionist tariffs?
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,
Yes, the US Govt. can arbitrarily set the value of the Yen, Pound, or Rupee vs the Dollar. But, it cannot control the trading in those moneys on the international exchange. If the US set the value of the Dollar artificially high vs the Yen, for example, it would cause Yens to be bought cheaply in the US and sold for more Dollars internationally. Dollars would be overvalued and U.S. debt would rise for every Yen exchanged.
You were analyzing Art. I, Sec. 8 where it says: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;..."
You said:
The key word here is "regulate". I asked if you would give the Feds "full control over with whom or where its citizens may trade." If your answer is "yes", depending on this clause, then you feel "regulate" can include complete prohibition.
As between our nation and foreign nations, yes, clearly it can. You don't think so? Prove it. Detail your logic. Cite your scholars, call up Alan Dershowitz. Whatever.
Therefore, the Feds, under your interpretation, could ban interstate commerce between California and Arizona, with or without reasons. Is that your position as well?
No. You fail to recognize the key distinctions between internal and external. Yours is therefore an insupportable reading of the Constitution. You fail to read it together. I.e., you miss this modifying portion which precedes it:
and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Anything done to effectuate your hypothetical ban, or even something less, has to be uniform. No ban could be made against one U.S. state, without it being applied to all. Has to be uniform. So the nature of the regulation internally is constrained, so that we have a fair and free internal market. But externally, no, there is no similar requirement. At all.
And quite intentionally so. The Federal control of which was deliberately magnified to strengthen the UNION. United we stand, divided we fall.
You would have the livelihoods of all Americans held hostage to the protectionism of corporate patents.
Patents promote "the useful arts." The country is founded on the promotion of the legal incentives to come up with new and better ideas. Interesting how you apparently regard obtaining Intellectual Property as somehow a criminal enterprise against "Americans". Somehow I don't think you are too worried about Americans. More likely your clients in China.
You need to find some middle ground here. You are advocating burning down the village to save the village.
Nope. That's your hypothetical conundrum...which is unreal in all particulars. And do you really want to get into what is "Best" for the "Most"? The idea is that we want manufactures HERE for very intensely vital national security reasons. Reasons I'm sure you're unprepared to ever accept. So in fact, what you fail to recognize, your profiteers who you fear I would be "burning down their part of the village" for the sake of some others understates and misapprehends the situation. IN point of fact....they are putting the whole village at risk of being burned down by their activity.
United We Stand. Divided We Fall.