Since banking is based on contracts (corrections welcome), not commerce, Congresss Commerce Clause powers do not extend to regulating contracts, even if such contracts are negotiated across state borders.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss. Paul v. Virginia, 1869.
Amendment? Schmendment! We don’t need your stinking amendment!
CWII Spark Ping — If they do this on any sort of scale, there WILL be repercussions; yet I fear that this is merely an extension of “asset forfeiture” and will be used gradually until there are people defending it as legitimate as well.
Repeal Filburn v Wickard.
Not that is matters anyhow (since it has not been followed for over 100 years), but there’s a few Amendments, somewhere in there, that specifically deny such tyranny.
Say, what’s the word from the GOP and party leadership about such a blatant, in-your-face police state tactic??
*crickets*