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

Skip to comments.

The Commerce Clause, The Federal Judiciary, and Tyranny (or How Scalia Helped Screw America)
self | 10/15/09 | Huck

Posted on 10/16/2009 8:29:12 AM PDT by Huck

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 401-408 next last
To: Huck
Then under your interpretation of the Constitution, Congress can prohibit wheat farmers in ANY country from growing wheat.

You mean like Thomas Jefferson's embargo on foreign goods?

161 posted on 10/16/2009 1:00:13 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
-- When, if ever, has the congress exercised it's prerogatives granted by "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."? --

The Military Commissions Act aimed to "court strip" certain habeas corpus cases.

162 posted on 10/16/2009 1:01:42 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You got banned once for saying I was a self-admitted pedophile. Do we need to do that dance again?


163 posted on 10/16/2009 1:02:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You got banned once for saying I was a self-admitted pedophile.

I'm banned? Odd, I thought I was here.

164 posted on 10/16/2009 1:03:37 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Huck
-- even when it is the court, through its appellate role, that is expanding the meaning of the Constitution through judicial activism, the Congress, possessing regulatory power over them in this regard, is an aider and abettor. --

My point was not that. It's that Congress itself is the instigator of the over-reach against the Commerce Clause. It is the Congressional enactment that is offensive to the constitution in the first place.

I don't contend that Congress might or should "regulate" the Courts into a position that causes the courts to lack jurisdiction over a Congressional enactment that over-reaches the Commerce Clause.

Again, you were looking for an accountable body, where accountability was through voter reaction. That exists today, as Congress is accountable to the voter for passing laws that exceed the Commerce Clause. If Congress takes those laws off the books, there won't be anything for an unaccountable Court to uphold.

165 posted on 10/16/2009 1:07:46 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Take a look at United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 (1942) and the cases cited there.

Wickard was in 1939, this was in 1942, so this was not prior to Wickard.

166 posted on 10/16/2009 1:08:20 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

OK. You were suspended. Do you we need to do that dance again?


167 posted on 10/16/2009 1:10:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When both are against you, piss and moan.

Poor you.


168 posted on 10/16/2009 1:14:10 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TChris; Huck; All
The Constitution was inspired by God.

I have been enjoying this very learned debate--one far over my knowledge and ability to participate in--with no intention whatsoever to say a thing until I came upon that quote from TChris.

Now, TChris, if you are a mormon, it is part of your religion that the Constitution is Divinely inspired. You're wrong, but that's part of your religion. However, my immediate concern is the dangerous relativism and henotheism of someone declaring any one nation's charter--other than Israel's (and I mean the Jewish People, not the State)--as "inspired by G-d." If the Constitution is "inspired by G-d" perhaps it should be adopted by every nation on earth. And if it is not good enough or fit to be universal, perhaps you mean it is inspired by the American "gxd" and constitutes "the truth" for our country. Is there then a separate "truth" for every country in the world? Just how many "truths"--and how many "gxds"--are there?

My own political ancestry is strictly Federalist via Southern Unionist Republicans during the Civil War, but I certainly have never claimed the Constitution was perfect or "inspired by G-d" (hence my interest in following this conversation). This deviates from theories of government into theology and is nothing more than a form of polytheism: America's Constitution is "inspired by G-d," Ethiopia is ruled by the Solomonic dynasty, J*sus personally descended and struck the soil of Armenia with a hammer, etc. All human created systems of government--and our own system is very much human-created--are imperfect. Perhaps the Constitution is indeed very much worthy of defense as you say, but calling it "inspired by G-d" was either a clumsy bit of exaggeration, an assertion of LDS doctrine, or else just plain horrifying.

As I said, I am of Federalist political ancestry myself and am the furthest thing away from libertarian that one can be. But there are no separate "gxds" or scriptures or religious truths for all the various nations. There is One G-d and One Truth. I have long noticed this henotheistic tendency in American conservatism (and its even worse in the conservatisms of other countries), and I simply had to respond to TChris' comment. Doubtless my point will be misunderstood by all.

We now return to the debate in which I sincerely hope I will not interpose again.

169 posted on 10/16/2009 1:16:11 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Bere'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Excellent!


170 posted on 10/16/2009 1:19:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
This is not simply a matter of judicial decisions but also of events and the desires of the American people.

If the American people wished to change the distribution of powers, they had a mechanism to do that in constitutional amendment. Any other mechanism is by definition illegal.

171 posted on 10/16/2009 1:22:59 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Not so. Wickard was decided in 1942, not long after Wrightwood Dairy.


172 posted on 10/16/2009 1:27:01 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You’re good at implicit denials. That’s not a virtue.


173 posted on 10/16/2009 1:27:35 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You’re good at implicit denials.

You're transparently bad at changing the subject and running for cover.

BTW, the 1895 Federal Anti-Lottery Act was a law, not an court decision. Let me know when you're ready to retract your "registered common carrier" falsehood.

And while we're at it:

Florida has no state income tax. Florida residents are still subject to the federal income tax.

The federal government has no general sales tax. Florida residents are still subject to the state's sales tax when they make their purchases.

Address it if you ever work up the nerve.

174 posted on 10/16/2009 1:33:33 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Wickard was decided in 1942, not long after Wrightwood Dairy

Ya gotta watch him.

175 posted on 10/16/2009 1:34:51 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

At some point though, settled facts and the passage of time bestow legitimacy on what might have once been seen as illegal or unconstitutional.


176 posted on 10/16/2009 1:36:10 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Huck; 11th Commandment; 17th Miss Regt; 2001convSVT; 2banana; 2ndDivisionVet; A_Former_Democrat; ...
Thanks for the essay Huck.

Great discussion here re the likely misapplication of the "commerce" clause and its impact on the sovereignty of The States and The People.

Side note if you have the time, check out my slideshow here that is illustrative of the America many of us old fogies once knew:

NORMAN ROCKWELL'S O, AMERICA


177 posted on 10/16/2009 1:36:21 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Not so. Wickard was decided in 1942, not long after Wrightwood Dairy.

I don't have access to the case details from here, but I'll look into it.

If it is prior to Wickard, it is not by much, and basically involves the same federal expansion of power under the New Deal Commerce Clause as Wickard.

I question the motives of anybody claiming to be a political conservative while defending that doctrine and that interpretation of the Constitution.

178 posted on 10/16/2009 1:41:33 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I presume you've done a good deal of research relating to original intent, etc; do you get a feel for what the Founders may have been thinking re the ability of The States to counter this apparent out-of-balance arrangement?
179 posted on 10/16/2009 1:42:32 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
You're transparently bad at changing the subject and running for cover.

You can defend the "elastic" interpreation of the commerce clause all you want, and revel in the vast expanse of federal authority it's produced.

I'll watch while everone figures out you're part of the problem.

180 posted on 10/16/2009 1:44:34 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 401-408 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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