I can agree that the federal government has usurped many powers that, under the constitution, belong to the states.
However, I believe that creating the FAA to establish rules and regulations for airlines is constitutional under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (AKA Commerce clause).
Airlines carry passengers and cargo between states and foreign nations. Clearly, this is "commerce" as defined in the Commerce clause.
Unfortunately, the Commerce clause is often incorrectly cited as rationale for the federal government to usurp state power.
Above are my insights & thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide them.
The Commerce Clause limits federal power to removing hindrances to interstate commerce, NOT giving the feds unlimited power over all interstate communications, transportations, and commerce. Your Leftist fascists have done that and it’s time to dismantle this 80%+ unconstitutional portion of the feds and restore our Free Constitutional Republic.
Thanks for reply FtrPilot.
Let's get transportation industry out of the Commerce Clause based on the following material.
First, a post-Civil War Supreme Court case, Paul v. Virginia, tested if Commerce Clause gives Congress the specific power to regulate insurance. The Court decided no. Why? The Court clarified that insurance is a contract, not commerce, regardless if buyer and seller in a contract are domiciled in different states.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869.
In fact, moving passengers and freight is done under Contract of Carriage, not treated as commerce, correction welcome.
Next, Justice Joseph Story wrote the best paragraph that I've seen so far about how not to interpret the Commerce Clause, everybody, me included, falling into this trap at times.
In fact, both Story and Thomas Jefferson had indicated that federal government's very few, enumerated powers need to be interpreted narrowly, or else you're not going to have a constitutionally limited power federal government for long.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
How narrowly should the Commerce Clause be interpreted? Based on my understanding of someone who engages in commerce, I would have argued that Commerce Clause reasonably implicitly gives Congress the "necessary and proper" power to regulate the value of money, define weights and measures as examples.
But if that's the case, then why did Constitutional Convention delegates make the effort to enumerate these "reasonably implied" powers separately in Clause 5 of Section 8?
Exempted from Article I, Section 8...
"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
We're back to Jefferson's justification of narrow interpretations of fed's very limited, constitutionally enumerated powers.
Insights welcome.