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.
It doesn't. My argument, my words, your silence.
And the government just needs to transmit that information to themselves in the past so that they can know which growers will wind up selling pot and which ones will only use it themselves.
Still preposterous.
So you still think that because the word aggregation does not appear in the Wickard decision, it must have nothing to do with the case?
Couldn’t find RP, huh? Too bad. I used to learn stuff from him, and occasionally from you, but not this time. Oh well, see ya next year when the Chicago case comes down.
Still no answer to my posted argument.
Almost as preposterous as this statement...
"The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce."
Complete gobbledygook. It sounds like a line from Alice in Wonderland.
Thanks for the non sequitur.
Not even considering your mixing of ‘60s hippie-speak and ‘80s slacker-speak your grasp of English is awful.
Uh huh.
commerce
noun: trade, business, traffic, market, trading
Commerce is the activities and procedures involved in buying and selling things.
Did you go to school with Janet Napolireno?
Only an idiot would move the goalpost and not expect to be caught. Let's review:
Marijuana is illegal to sell so it is preposterous to consider it any part of commerce in any case."Any part of commerce is any case" was furtively transformed into "legitimate commerce."
Pathetic.
And the suggestion that Congress may not attempt control commerce which is illegal is, as before, preposterous.
LOLOL Pathetic logic to be sure.
...and republicans. Remember, it was Justice Scalia who relied on Wickard v. Filburn to uphold the federal ban on medical marijuana that was never sold and never left California.
...and Republicans. Remember, it was Justice Scalia who relied on Wickard v. Filburn to uphold the federal ban on medical marijuana that was never sold and never left California.
Too bad you weren't there at the Constitutional Convention to tell the Framers that criminals enjoyed an immunity from Congressional authority when contraband goods were involved. I'm sure they would have been fascinated.
When it comes to idiots no one is going to take a back seat to you.
Not since robertpaulsen left us anyway.
Zero signal to noise. Impressive.
The power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause is not limited to “legitimate commerce.” Contraband is not beyond the reach of Congress, no matter how often you assert that preposterous proposition.
Not for a liberal/Progressive/commie who believes in the "living breathing Constitution."
Lucky for the smugglers that they could just tell any federal agents that they weren't carrying "legitimate" items of commerce, so Congress had no authority over them.
Whiskey wasn’t outlawed completely was it? Another catastrophic failure of logic for you. lol
Drug sales aren't outlawed completely. Nice foot shot.
Apparently the word "legitimate" means whatever you want it to mean at any given moment.
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.