Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion
Why would this be argued under the Commerce Clause and not under the Elastic Clause?

Not familiar with the Elastic Clause. Could you copy and paste it here?

93 posted on 05/04/2013 5:57:21 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: Ken H

It’s the “Necessary and Proper” Clause, which actually was used by Scalia. You can read about it at http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/elastic-clause/

But what I was actually thinking of was the “General Welfare” clause. But I now find that the “General Welfare” clause does not authorize Congress to MAKE LAWS for the general welfare of the country, but to RAISE MONIES for the general welfare. See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

So they really would HAVE to rely on the Commerce Clause as the reason to be able to meddle in intrastate affairs. And the claim is that the Elastic Clause allows them to make whatever laws they need in order to end up with there being no drugs of a certain kind that are produced in one state and sold in another. But that doesn’t seem to authorize them to worry about what is produced and sold all in the same state. Yet that is the power they’ve already claimed for themselves by naming certain drugs illegal, even if they are produced and sold in the same state.

To be truthful, I don’t understand where the feds get the authority to make most of the laws they make. Seems like all the laws that are justified by the Commerce Clause would have to exempt intrastate production and sales.


96 posted on 05/04/2013 6:26:58 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson