Con Law in a Nutshell: Creating a Parallel Universe

Culture Wars ^ | 1/04 | James G. Bruen, Jr.

[spunkets]

Once it crosses Stste lines you are. Hence the FDA. That's the dept. that regulates drugs, food, services, devices, ect...
All by the authority and power established and given to Congress by the commerce clause contained within the body of the Constitution. Congress does indeed regulate hot dog production and sales.

[inquest]

Congress does indeed regulate hot dog production and sales.

Unconstitutionally.

[spunkets]

It is Constitutional. It's clear as a bell historically also, since one of the motivations for dropping the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution was the inability to regulate interstate commerce. Shoe sales comes to mind here, because that was one of the particular problems they were faced with.

[tpaine]

Bruen writes:

There is no Constitutional right to abort a child or to sodomize your neighbor.

The USSC has never said there were such absolute rights. Both abortion & sodomy can be & are regulated by our States, within the constitutional guidelines of our BOR's..

The Supreme Court has created a perception otherwise, but it was unprincipled in doing so, and we would be justified in tossing it out on its ear. James G. Bruen, Jr. is an attorney.

Bruen is an unprincipled attorney, imo, seeing that he should know that our constitutional principles have not been violated by the court in either case he cites.
-- His hyperbole is irresponsible, and he is close to violating his own oath to protect & defend the US Constitution.

[breakem]

I think the government requires consent of both parties in order to issue a marriage license. I would be interested in your process for determing that your llama has given consent.

[inquest]

It's clear as a bell historically also, since one of the motivations for dropping the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution was the inability to regulate interstate commerce.

Of course. There's no denying that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. But production and local sales are not interstate commerce.

[spunkets]

"But production and local sales are not interstate commerce."

The local production and sale has an economic effect, because it is an integral subpart of what is in total an interstate market. If it's local hot dogs, it theoretically cuts in to the interstate market. The idea is uniform rules to maintain fairness in the market and protect the rights of the individuals involved. It is no stretch to see how simple rules providing for uniformity, fairness and rights protection are valid here.

[inquest]

If it's local hot dogs, it theoretically cuts in to the interstate market.

So what if it does? Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce, not protect it from competition.

[spunkets]

They are not protecting it from competition. They are providing rights protection for the consumers and a level playing field in the market. The rules are uniform and universal.

[inquest]

However you describe what they're doing, it's not regulation of interstate commerce. Regulation of interstate commerce means providing rules for those engaging in interstate commerce. It doesn't mean providing rules for local transactions, however desirable such rules may be.

[spunkets]

"Regulation of interstate commerce means providing rules for those engaging in interstate commerce. It doesn't mean providing rules for local transactions, however desirable such rules may be."

Congress was and is still annoyed by such etherial nitpicking. The market is open and Free. They make universally applicable rules under the principlals of fairness to govern all possible players in the market. When the scope of the market is interstate they are justified in acting as they have.

The medical industry is interstate in scope, as is the market they are embedded in. Abortion is service provided in this market that always results in a rights violation. The feds have justification to ban the service. In reality it is an interstate murder for hire service.

[inquest]

Congress was and is still annoyed by such etherial nitpicking.

What "nitpicking"? How is it nitpicking to say that the power to regulate such-and-such activity, involves only the power to provide the rules for those who are actually engaging in such activity? What you call nitpicking is just plain natural reading of the English language.

[spunkets]

You are denying both reality and economics. The scope of the market is global, not local.

[Aquinasfan]

I think another part of the reason is the media-induced public view that the courts are the only thing standing between venal politicians and totalitarian madness.

That seems to be the bottom line.

[Aquinasfan]

I began to conclude that this statement was supremely dangerous, and represented man's attempt to put himslef in God's place, in effect rebuilding the Tower of Babel.

No doubt about that. But it's hard to know whether the judges are evil, confused or both. Certainly, opinions like this are confused. I spent my college years like this, and they were the worst years of my life. The thought of handing down judgments in that state of mind is frightening, to say the least.

[Aquinasfan]

There is no Constitutional right to abort a child or to sodomize your neighbor.

The USSC has never said there were such absolute rights. Both abortion & sodomy can be & are regulated by our States, within the constitutional guidelines of our BOR's.

These "rights" follow logically from the following statement:

"the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

In other words, anything goes.

[Aquinasfan]

You're both making good points.

My understanding is that the commerce clause was intended to avoid trade wars between states. Was that the original intent? If so, how would the modern interpretation square with the original intent?

[spunkets]

Commerce is a endeavor of the people, not the States. The original States were not involved in commerce. WI is forbidden from engaging in any commerce whatsoever. States can only regulate and unless they all agree to the same regulation, the result is unfairness in markets of interstate scope. The unfairness usually favors the interests of that States players. That was recognized originally, hence the Constitution with it's commerce clause.

The fact that Congress has not always acted in a way that imposed fairness and equity to all State players does not effect the purpose and intent of the clause. The greatest divergence from the original intent is the modern usage of the clause and other phrases to engage in socialism. That is State engagement in commerce. To various degrees the fed has taken over the sovereignty of decision for both consumer and service, or goods provider. Freedom, individual rights and fairness is junked in that corrupted application.

[Aquinasfan]

States can only regulate and unless they all agree to the same regulation, the result is unfairness in markets of interstate scope. The unfairness usually favors the interests of that States players. That was recognized originally, hence the Constitution with it's commerce clause.

That makes sense to me, like regulations regarding safe trucking practices. But how far can this principle be justly extended?

[spunkets]

"how far can this principle be justly extended?"

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress and it's depts have gone beyond providing rights protection market fairness. They have taken over the decision making process of all players in many instances. That is socialism, not Freedom. The original intent was that the government not be involved in commerce itself, only involved in protecting rights and providing fairness.