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

Skip to comments.

Discussion on the intent of the Commerce Clause
Dec 25, 2009 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 12/25/2009 1:56:41 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

And apparently 59 other Democrat senators agree with her.

It is my understanding that the intent of the commerce clause is to assign the responsibility of regulating commerce (the transportation and trading of goods with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes) to the central government, taking the law-making responsibility for “inter-state trade and foreign trade” out of the hands of state government. Its purpose is to ensure that trade flows smoothly and unrestricted among the states and that foreign trade CAN be restricted by taxes and tariffs, etc, by the congress where necessary and appropriate to promote the domestic economy.

It was never intended to regulate the agricultural industry itself, or the manufacturing process of products or goods, or services, and definitely NOT to regulate or tax individual FREE citizens.

And the commerce clause was never intended to regulate trade among private citizens, nor does it regulate intra-state commerce, nor does it override states rights to govern themselves. The 10th amendment rules!

We the people continue to enjoy our God-given unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness also including among others the constitutional rights to private property, security in our homes and private affairs, due process, presumption of innocence, right to trial before a jury of our peers, etc, and the rights to self-defense and to defend ourselves and our property and our posterity against tyrannical government!

Somebody please tell me where I'm wrong.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; commerceclause; congress; constitution; freedom; healthcare; individualrights; liberty; obamacare; senate; sovereignty; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-264 next last
To: Ken H

yes...there are a plethora of laws and precedent cases that need be repealed/overturned....the 2010 Congress will be a good place to start repealing! as litmus test for election. So far I see 2 cases...this list needs to grow. The Commerce Clause needs claws.


101 posted on 12/26/2009 5:43:37 AM PST by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free of the Fairness Doctrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
Where is robertpaulsen when you need him to explain why all this is the only possible conservative thought?

RP got himself bannned some time ago.

102 posted on 12/26/2009 5:49:05 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
In the book “Unintended Consequences” John Ross mentioned a detailed study of the origins of the 2nd Amendment which was done by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. In the book he said that it was locked away & never releaed. For grins I did a search on the internet & found it - you can buy it on Amazon.com for around $10. Senator Orin Hatch was primarily responsible for this very solid piece of evidence that the 2nd was always meant to be an individual right. If someone has a way to contact Hatch, it might be a good time to suggest another in-depth review of the origins of the commerce clause & the intent of the founders. And then it should be used in the Supreme Court to get Healthcare & maybe Welfare & a [large] number of other federal programs canceled as unconstitutional.

You sir, have HORSE SENSE!

103 posted on 12/26/2009 5:54:18 AM PST by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free of the Fairness Doctrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: browniexyz

That’s correct right now, because it is regulated as a service.


104 posted on 12/26/2009 5:55:36 AM PST by EBH (it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
It’s a Photoshopped X-ray of a large screw inserted into someone’s rectum.

We HOPE it's Photoshopped, anyway.

105 posted on 12/26/2009 5:56:03 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!

I know where I stand.”

And I will stand with you!


106 posted on 12/26/2009 5:57:41 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Mojave

So you’re saying I have to settle for Mojave? Is he around? ;)


107 posted on 12/26/2009 6:05:33 AM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
So you’re saying I have to settle for Mojave? Is he around? ;)

Haven't seen him for awhile. Haven't missed him any.

108 posted on 12/26/2009 6:08:32 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
Scalia's opinion is derived from Wickard and falls apart without it, just like Stevens'. It just only says Wickard once. Very skillful writing.

When the facts are against you, pound on the table.

109 posted on 12/26/2009 6:22:24 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Even with no opposition, you manage to lose the debate.


110 posted on 12/26/2009 6:23:23 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Do not post to me.


111 posted on 12/26/2009 6:26:54 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You just finished making a post about me in #108. If you are so afraid of my replies, simply don’t post ad hominem slurs for me to reply to.


112 posted on 12/26/2009 6:32:43 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mojave; Admin Moderator
I posted nothing about you. I said that I hadn't seen any of your posts for awhile, and that I hadn't missed them, both of which are true.

I have had no interest in having any discussion with you, on any subject since you got suspended for accusing me of being a self-professed pedophile.

Do not post to me again.

113 posted on 12/26/2009 6:39:18 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Senator Diane Feinstein (Dummy-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance .... from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

;
(head shaking) Di, Di, Di - don't' you EVER learn?

You were already chastised by SCOTUS for that ploy with your Federal Gun Free School Zone Act that the 'Rehnquist Court' struck down. You were (cough) 'reminded' by Justice Scalia that:

The Commerce Clause doesn't pertain to everything.
Now I know you're still ticked that your pet law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as you had a screed on your senate web page for years that it was an 'unfair' ruling because : Your intentions were good.

Well Di, get ready for your 'good intentions' to be tossed in the trash bin -- AGAIN.

ps:
Your Commerce Clause argument would *almost*, *maybe*, hold water if Congress regulated Health Insurance Companies, but it doesn't - states do. That's why I can't buy a policy from a company in ... Wyoming. So first strip all 50 states and territories of their power to regulate Health Insurance and then get back to me. ("Blue Cross 'Basic Blue Plan'. Call now for information! note: Not available in all states").

However, whether Joe Blow who lives in Iowa and travels to Maine has or doesn't have Health Insurance in no way effects 'Interstate Commerce'. He can go or not go - at HIS choice. So you still lose even if you do that.

And then Di, we have the teeny fact that every version of ObamaDeathcare that's been Made Public, DOESN'T even mention the Commerce Clause as its constitutional basis. Now that's a bit odd, no? I sure found it odd since the CC IS your favorite fall back option, as you just indicated, ya dimwit.

114 posted on 12/26/2009 6:40:50 AM PST by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Don’t post about me, even without the courtesy of a ping, if you don’t want a reply. That should be simple enough for even you to understand.


115 posted on 12/26/2009 6:43:04 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

What posts I have seen recently is not about you. That should be easy enough for you to understand.


116 posted on 12/26/2009 6:46:33 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You just won’t stop.


117 posted on 12/26/2009 6:48:28 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

I hope you get suspended again.


118 posted on 12/26/2009 6:51:42 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Please stop.


119 posted on 12/26/2009 7:02:31 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The issue of Commerce Clause application to Insurance Companies has already come under review by SCOTUS. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=322+&page=533

Congress then passed the McCarran–Ferguson Act which exempts insurance companies from federal anti-trust legislation. It also places the states with the responsibility of regulating insurance within their borders.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00006701——000-.html

The issue of a mandate on the individual would not center around states rights regarding insurance since that was already addressed.

IMO the issue will follow the path of Roe v Wade and be challenged on the grounds of the 9th Amendmnet, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and equal protection granted under the 14th amendment regarding states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The question I have wondered is how will a plaintiff be granted standing by the Court?

Will it be through the tax courts? In other words, I pay my penalty and then file a lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims to recover the contested amount paid on the grounds the tax violates my rights under the 9th and the 14th Amendments. The appeals path is then clear.

That is how I see this going down.


120 posted on 12/26/2009 7:07:29 AM PST by vg0va3 (I don't plan to quit the fight until it is finally over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-264 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