Replies

The fact is they have the constitutional power to do so, so say the courts. I would hope that you agree with that basic fact.

Second fact: The courts violated the constitution. Congress is charged with creating laws in accordance to the constitution. Congress makes the laws, not the courts. When the court determines the laws it's called legislating from the bench and violates the constitution.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate tariffs between the sates regarding interstate commerce. The founders didn't want states placing excessive tariffs on goods and services entering their state which could be used as protectionism for intrastate produced goods and services. The original intent of the Commerce Clause is to regulate, not prohibit. Two very different actions.

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following in Lopez:

"Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8."

"When the court determines the laws it's called legislating from the bench and violates the constitution."

No. When the court rewrites the law and orders remedial action, that's called "legislating from the bench". When the court determines if a law is constitutional, it's called "doing their job".

"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate tariffs between the sates regarding interstate commerce."

So? What is important is the original meaning, not the original intent. The original intent of the hammer was to pound nails -- does that mean it cannot be used for any other purpose?

The original meaning of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce among the several states. At least, that's what is says. It says nothing about being limited to regulating tariffs between states.

"The original intent of the Commerce Clause is to regulate, not prohibit"

No. The original use of the Commerce Clause was to remove barriers to commerce among the states. It was used later to prohibit commerce among the states. Both actions are allowed under the definition of "to regulate".

President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used both actions when "regulating" commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes.

"Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
-- Justice Scalia in Gonzales v Raich