Wrong. I already told you. President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used the power of "to regulate" commerce with foreign nations to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 and used the power of "to regulate" commerce with the Indian tribes to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians in 1802.
These are the Founding Fathers. Madison wrote the Commerce Clause. They would have known better what "to regulate" meant than either you or I.
In a landmark case, Gibbons v Ogden, 1824, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall (another Founding Father) it was stated in the opinion:
The 'power to regulate commerce,' here meant to be granted, was that power to regulate commerce which previously existed in the States. But what was that power? The States were, unquestionably, supreme; and each possessed that power over commerce, which is acknowledged to reside in every sovereign State. The definition and limits of that power are to be sought among the features of international law; and, as it was not only admitted, but insisted on by both parties, in argument, that, 'unaffected by a state of war, by treaties, or by municipal regulations, all commerce among independent States was legitimate,' there is no necessity to appeal to the oracles of the jus commune for the correctness of that doctrine. The law of nations, regarding man as a social animal, pronounces all commerce legitimate in a state of peace, until prohibited by positive law. The power of a sovereign state over commerce, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure. And since the power to prescribe the limits to its freedom, necessarily implies the power to determine what shall remain unrestrained, it follows, that the power must be exclusive; it can reside but in one potentate; and hence, the grant of this power carries with it the whole subject, leaving nothing for the State to act upon."
Geez Louise. What don't you get?
Wrong. I already told you.
You say a lot of things. Most of them in wrong and in error. So again, surprise you're wrong this time.
President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used the power of "to regulate" commerce with foreign nations to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 and used the power of "to regulate" commerce with the Indian tribes to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians in 1802.
tpaine explained this to you at least a few times. In short, they regulated commerce -- they didn't prohibit an object.
These are the Founding Fathers. Madison wrote the Commerce Clause. They would have known better what "to regulate" meant than either you or I.
For sure they know better than you. That's why they regulated commerce yet didn't prohibit an object.
It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.
You peddling half-truth. Again.
The original intent and meaning of the CC was to regulate which doesn't mean nor intend to prohibit.
Quite true. Socialists however argue that because Jefferson and Madison used the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to prohibit trade in 1807 and used the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes to prohibit the sale of alcohol in 1802 -; -- that this allows Congress to use a 'power to prohibit' in regulating commerce among the several states.
In 1802 & 1807 Congress used their 'power to regulate' to prohibit trade [legitimately] with adversaries of the United States.
Ever since, Congress has ~ illegitimately ~ attempted to use that power -- by prohibiting trade among the people of the several States. -- In effect they have decreed themselves to have an adversarial power over the people of the States they are bound to serve.
Socialist's also claim that an opinion in the case of Gibbons v Ogden, 1824, justifies that:
"-- The power of a sovereign state over commerce, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure. --"
-- Ignoring the fact that nothing in our Constitution delegates a power to "limit and restrain" commerce "at pleasure".
Geez Louise. How confused can these socialist's get?