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 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-264 next last
To: Mojave

Marijuana, the subject you chose to make this about, is. Your straw man is burning.


221 posted on 12/29/2009 6:35:37 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Marijuana, the subject you chose to make this about, is.

Wrong.

Federally Legal Marijuana: The Legendary Old Miss Pot Farm

222 posted on 12/30/2009 11:49:49 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Nice example of the fedgov exempting itself from its own laws. That's not very supportive of Constitutionally correct activity. But none of that pot ever gets into commerce so it's not any kind of example for that argument.

Another EPIC FAIL of logic.

223 posted on 12/30/2009 12:24:42 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Nice example of the fedgov exempting itself from its own laws.

Nice example of dancing.

So is marijuana "legitimate commerce" or not per your invented and still undefined term?

224 posted on 12/30/2009 4:23:10 PM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

After inventing the word “legitimate” I’m kind of tired. I’ll get back to you. LOLOL


225 posted on 12/30/2009 4:57:50 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

And “legitimate commerce” mutates into “legitimate” as he heads for cover.


226 posted on 12/31/2009 3:39:49 PM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You’re right, there is no such phrase as “legitimate commerce.” I invented both of those words and put them together just to fool you. Pay no attention to any similarly spelled words in your dictionary. /s LOL


227 posted on 12/31/2009 4:44:58 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
You’re right, there is no such phrase as “legitimate commerce.”

Not in the Constitution or the Commerce Clause. Why are you so reluctant to say what you mean by the term?

228 posted on 12/31/2009 6:06:59 PM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

I think I already did. The meaning is rather obvious.


229 posted on 12/31/2009 6:18:34 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The meaning is rather obvious.

Perhaps while under the influence.

Let's see, Congress could enact a prohibition on the sale of whiskey to the Indians because because whiskey was "legitimate commerce." But Congress can't enact a prohibition on the sale of marijuana because marijuana is not "legitimate commerce." And marijuana isn't "legitimate commerce" because Congress prohibits it. But if marijuana wasn't prohibited by Congress, then it would be "legitimate commerce" that Congress would then be empowered to prohibit. But as soon as Congress enacted a prohibition on marijuana it would instantly revert to no longer being "legitimate commerce", so the prohibition would be unconstitutional.

What case was that anyway? Cheech vs. Chong?

230 posted on 12/31/2009 6:34:52 PM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
You certainly don't need any help making an idiot of yourself but I don't mind underlining the obvious for you.

But Congress can't enact a prohibition on the sale of marijuana because marijuana is not "legitimate commerce."

It is clear that I never said that or anything like it. A "prohibition on the sale of marijuana" is a law prohibiting commerce in marijuana. Even a small child could understand that extremely simple concept. That being established; (the concept not your idiocy, that's so clear it needs no extrapolation) any commerce in marijuana is obviously illegitimate, ie not legally sanctioned, in nature.

When you go back and complete your grade school education you might be fit to argue the dictionary definition of a few words. Legal concepts are much further down the road for you. Until then this is nothing more than an exercise in 'throwing the monkey's crap back at it' for me. It's kind of fun watching you eat it.

231 posted on 12/31/2009 8:18:01 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

You’re nasty.


232 posted on 12/31/2009 8:20:22 PM PST by be-baw (still seeking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

LOL


233 posted on 12/31/2009 8:32:13 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

Looking back through a few of your recent posts you have no problem being nasty yourself. Did you bother to read the whole exchange I’ve been in here or just my last post? Hmmmm?


234 posted on 12/31/2009 8:58:55 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
1. Only an illiterate would conflate the black market with legitimate commerce based on a dictionary definition and consider it subject to regulation.

2. That being established; (the concept not your idiocy, that's so clear it needs no extrapolation) any commerce in marijuana is obviously illegitimate, ie not legally sanctioned, in nature.

So being "obviously illegimate" because is "not legally sanctioned", it isn't subject to regulation and therefore can't be prohibited because that would "conflate the black market with legitimate commerce." And since marijuana is prohibited it is not "legitimate commerce" and therefore Congress can't prohibit it. But when confronted with the fact that the 1st Congress prohibited sales of whiskey to the Indians, you deemed those whiskey sales to Indians as being regulations on "legitimate commerce" even though such sales were prohibited and were "not legally sanctioned."

Nothing like building your argument entirely on direct contractions, logical inconsistency and flexible terminology invented out thin air.

235 posted on 01/01/2010 2:21:34 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

He’s just rattled.


236 posted on 01/01/2010 2:23:12 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
So being "obviously illegimate" because is "not legally sanctioned", it isn't subject to regulation and therefore can't be prohibited...

No, it IS prohibited. I said that. The rattle you hear is between your ears. The English language is just beyond your feeble capabilities that's all.

237 posted on 01/01/2010 1:51:02 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
No, it IS prohibited.

So were whiskey sales to the Indians. Nice foot shot.

238 posted on 01/02/2010 1:45:26 PM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Marijuana is prohibited to everybody.

Nice empty head rattle.

239 posted on 01/02/2010 1:55:29 PM PST by TigersEye (Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Marijuana is prohibited to everybody.

And he crawls back to his non sequitur.

240 posted on 01/03/2010 8:07:23 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-264 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