Discussion on the intent of the Commerce Clause

Dec 25, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

And apparently 59 other Democrat senators agree with her.

It is my understanding that the intent of the commerce clause is to assign the responsibility of regulating commerce (the transportation and trading of goods with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes) to the central government, taking the law-making responsibility for “inter-state trade and foreign trade” out of the hands of state government. Its purpose is to ensure that trade flows smoothly and unrestricted among the states and that foreign trade CAN be restricted by taxes and tariffs, etc, by the congress where necessary and appropriate to promote the domestic economy.

It was never intended to regulate the agricultural industry itself, or the manufacturing process of products or goods, or services, and definitely NOT to regulate or tax individual FREE citizens.

And the commerce clause was never intended to regulate trade among private citizens, nor does it regulate intra-state commerce, nor does it override states rights to govern themselves. The 10th amendment rules!

We the people continue to enjoy our God-given unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness also including among others the constitutional rights to private property, security in our homes and private affairs, due process, presumption of innocence, right to trial before a jury of our peers, etc, and the rights to self-defense and to defend ourselves and our property and our posterity against tyrannical government!

Somebody please tell me where I'm wrong.

[TigersEye]

Completely.

[publiusF27]

In the case of marijuana, the Court noted in Raich that given the fungible nature of the illicit drug that there was no way for Congress to know in advance whether any given manufacture of marijuana would enter interstate commerce, so that regulation of the manufacture was necessary for Congress to control the sale that such manufacture would precede.

I've never seen that point disproved.

I have not tried to disprove that point, only to show that it relies on the reasoning in Wickard, where aggregation and substantial effects were combined. What you are saying is that while a given individual might grow his own cannabis for personal medical use in compliance with the laws of his state, others similarly situated might sell it, and while one or two wouldn't affect anything, millions would. That's exactly the reasoning in Wickard, and even Scalia can't escape it.

[Mojave]

Wrong. (And predictably explanation free.)

Manufacture precedes sale. Regulation of manufacture facilitates the regulation of sales. The assertion that the power of Congress to regulate commerce does not include manufacture is unsustainable, per Madison.

[Mojave]

I have not tried to disprove that point, only to show that it relies on the reasoning in Wickard

It stands on its own. Untouched so far.