Are you @#$%ing kidding me? By this logic, the feds have jurisdiction over every business that gets at least one out-of-state customer - and how can they prove they don't? If this ruling is upheld federalism has been unilaterally abolished.
[Kitty lovers: Pix, video of the cats at source.]
Did Key West [city fathers] ever settle the *gypsy chicken* problem *some* busybodies think they have?
Ping
Kittehs are a bonus to this thread about Fed gov power grab.
The Feds Can Tell Ernest Hemingway's Cats What To Do; Here's Why [Totalitarian Fed power grab]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture can regulate how the cats are treated, judges say. The museum gets visitors from out-of-state. It charges those visitors to see Hemingway's home and the famous cats. Interstate commerce gives Uncle Sam an interest, according to the courts.
By this logic, the feds have jurisdiction over every business that gets at least one out-of-state customer - and how can they prove they don't? If this ruling is upheld federalism has been unilaterally abolished.
Check out article.
Thanks, Slings and Arrows.
Political considerations aside, the feds must think awfully highly of themselves.
I have never met ANYONE who can tell cats what to do and get away with it!
Bookmarked!
.
The exchange of goods, products, or any type of Personal Property. Trade and traffic carried on between different peoples or states and its inhabitants, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities but also the instrumentalities, agencies, and means by which business is accomplished. The transportation of persons and goods, by air, land, and sea. The exchange of merchandise on a large scale between different places or communities.....The Feds are overstepping on this one a bit. Aholes.
This is one topic where I am “Pro Choice.” I don’t want the feds regulating how we must keep our pussies!
They made that power grab in the 1960s. See "Heart of Atlanta Motel"
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
“If this ruling is upheld federalism has been unilaterally abolished.”
This ruling is not necessary. Feds have had the power to regulate ANYTHING that might cross state lines for a long time.
Case in point are federal firearm and drug laws. Even firearms or drugs manufactured and used entirely within one state fall under federal law. And as we see with firearms and drugs, the feds will use one of their agencies to harass private citizens that are doing something completely legal within their own state.
The Constitution was torn up long ago. We are simply seeing the results
I think what is really going on here is that in “Ol’ Frank” Roosevelt’s time, there was a massive expansion of federal power using the excuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution. The federal courts have so perverted this, that it is now interpreted as meaning both “Inter-” and “Intra-” state commerce. Basically that the feds have the power to regulate ALL commerce.
Then, when LBJ (it was supposed to be JFK) was president, he did another massive expansion of federal power to create the welfare state, using the General Welfare Clause of the constitution as his excuse. This was most recently cited by Nancy Pelosi as a major rationale for Obamacare.
Well, the John Roberts SCOTUS decision, while accepting the concept of Obamacare, *crippled* this misuse of both the Interstate and General Welfare Clauses to advance the growth of the federal government.
However the feds, and likely many federal judges, want this abusive authority back. This suggests that there may soon be a whole surfeit of petty cases, like this one, that federal judges will use these extremely misinterpreted constitutional clauses to justify, to “rebuild them in precedent”.
To further the expansion of federal power far beyond what it is today.
Six toes?
Our furniture looks bad enough with a five-toed cat.
Cats aren’t dumb. They’ll find a new palace if the current one isn’t treating them as royally as they think they should be treated. If fifty of the them are at the museum, then they’re being treated fine. Case closed and tax dollars saved. The judge should assign 10 years of poop patrol to that ding bat who brought the charges.
There is always a solution.
Wickard v. Filburn: like herpes, the gift that keeps on giving.
Good news for those who played with plastic models of polydactyls when they were kids—the asteroid didn’t kill them all off after all.
Using their logic (that since it still affected the national totals when looked at in the aggregate with everyone else that might do it, it was therefore still under Federal control), the Commerce Clause could now be applied to anything at any time.