[Gumption]

I asked you how we could pratically sustain an army and navy if we keep giving away weapons which would destroy them and make it impossible for them to do their job. It is this that makes your interpretation not just wrong but impractical.

If a situation comes up that the Constitution doesn't seem to address properly, the correct course of action to take is NOT to just interpret the Constitution in a way that will cover the situation that concerns us. Let's look at it both ways ...

If it were currently constitutional for the Feds to engage in the sale of military equipment/arms to other countries, and we, as a nation, decided that we wanted that to be UNconstitutional, then we should pass a constitutional amendment denying that power to the federal government. If it were currently unconstitutional to sell foreign nations our military equipment/arms, and we, as a nation, decided that we wanted that to be constitutional, then we should pass an amendment granting that power.

The way we have it now is, we allow some military equipment to be sold to some nations and not others. Who we sell to, and what we sell, seems to be up to whatever administration is in charge of the Commerce Department at the time (we saw how that worked didn't we?) As far as I know, States are prohibited from selling any military equipment to foreign nations. I don't know about companies and individuals. But regardless, I'm of the opinion that the Constitution doesn't grant the power to prohibit those sales because I don't believe that "regulate" can be construed as including the power to prohibit. If I believed that "regulate" could mean prohibit then under the current Constitution the Feds would have the power to prohibit Idaho from selling potatoes to Virginia for whatever reason they wanted. I think "regulate commerce among the several States" means to "make regular or uniform the rules for commerce among the several States".

That being said ...I think the Feds should have the power to prohibit the sale of any products with military applications (that include technologies less than 30 yrs old, and/or components of weapons of mass destruction) to all governments, companies, or individuals in foreign nations, so I would be in favor of an Amendment to the Constitution that stated as much. Something like ...

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Note: A portion of Article I, section 8, of the Constitution was superseded by this 28th amendment.

Section 1.
The Congress shall have Power To prohibit the sale of any products or equipment with military applications with technologies less than 30 yrs old, and/or components, whole or partial, of weapons of mass destruction including, but not limited to, chemical, biological, or nuclear to all governments, companies, or individuals in foreign nations, or within the United States.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

How's that?

[breakem]

There are two things that puzzle me. On this thread someone said the government can regulate trade, but not prohibit it. I disagree that they are mutually exclusive. Is there a source for this interpretation?

I cannot reconcile the differences or contradiction about actions to provide the common defense and general welfare. I saw a thread on the general welfare item here awhile back. Perhaps the libertarian site has some info.

I continue to believe that restricting the capabilities of potential enemies by not trading essential materials or systems is part of establishing an army, for the reasons I stated earlier.

I am basically a lzy researcher, I am however, familiar with the constitution, but obviously am far from being a scholar.