Posted on 07/01/2006 7:19:16 AM PDT by LouAvul
Just another nail in the coffin.
What is the logic behind applying the interstate commerce clause? Seems like a majority of federal overreaching comes from misapplying this.
DustyMoment wrote:
Not sure I'm making that connection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The connection was explained here:
FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts
--- Not that a lot of those here 'got it'.
Proposed: Ammendment XXVIII; 1.The commerce clause and general welfare clauses are hereby stricken from the Constitution. 2. All laws, regulations, government bodies, commissions and entities relying in whole or in part on these striken clauses are here null and void and rescinded.
Chickens meet Roost ping.
You have to understand the tortured logic of Raich. Because this guy built his own machine gun, he won't have to buy one (even a legal pre-ban version). Therefore, interstate commerce is affected, and the Commerce Clause applied.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
You are correct. There's nothing wrong with the Commerce Clause -- it's working exactly how it was intended. What's wrong is a Congress that wants to use it to regulate everything from the minimum wage to spousal abuse.
Fortunately, we the people have control over that -- every two years we elect the people who write these laws. We can simply elect those who will write the laws the way we want them. (By "we" I mean "we the majority", whoever that is. It may not be "us" if you get my drift).
Those who want and expect five activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to do their work for them are acting like helpless juveniles. Get out the vote and throw out the lawmakers that are writing this overreaching legislation. Now, that may be a little more work than sitting at a keyboard typing "But that's unconstitutional" every time a new law is passed, but that is the way to solve the problem.
Great idea.
Amen.
>>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A recent Supreme Court ruling that Congress can ban homegrown marijuana for medical use in California led Friday to the reinstatement of an Arizona man's overturned conviction for having homemade machine guns.<<
Well sure - if the interstate commerce clause give the federal government over personal issues even when there is no interstate commerce it would apply to lots of things.... and be nutty.
Congress (via the FAA) regulates the interstate airlines -- cruising altitudes, speeds, air corridors, landing patterns, etc. Are you saying they may not regulate the purely intrastate flight of a private pilot when his flying has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce Congress is regulating?
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it. If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity. Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?
The Commerce Clause was meant to be powerful. The problem lies with a Congress abusing that power. The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
And that message would be what ?
Now it's back to business as usual for the Court, IOW further stripping away the protections of our liberties that the authors designed into our Constitution.
Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, "Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity ... if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."
Justice Scalia wrote in his concurrence, "... the commerce power permits Congress ... to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants."
We will vote for your opponent in the next election because he more truly represents our interests.
Given this sort of ruling, I'd like to know exactly what sort of act or product does not, in some tortuous way, effect interstat commerce...
For instance, I suppose that having a "homemade machine gun" effects interstate commerce by not having to buy an illegal machinegun from out of state.
And having homegrown pot depresses the economy of another state, or even another country, like Mexico, since you don't have to buy the pot from out of state...
Mark
That IS the "logic." The Constitution is a set of rules that strictly defines what the government is and is not allowed to do. The overly broad interpretation of the ICC allows the federal government to intervene in areas of life where the Consitution doesn't allow the federal government to do so. It's sort of like "a living Constitution," where the Constitution means what ever the person interpreting it wants it to mean: And they've got the deadly force to back up that meaning.
Mark
Wordy prose, to be sure, but no different from what I said.
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.