Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
As others have said, the commerce clause was nothing more than this until FDR stacked his supreme court and "interpreted" it to mean more.
I've known that for a long time but it wasn't until two weeks ago when I was researching jury nullification that I stumbled onto upon an explanation of how FDR stacked the SC. Basically he was so frustrated by not being able to ram his agenda into law he decided to stack the SC in his favor.
It truly amazes me that people here on Free Republic need lessons in what the Constitution means. I would have figured that they should at least have cursory knowledge before even posting a criticism of anyone lest they get hammered by someone who does.
History is good guide for not repeating the same mistakes. The founders didn't have all the answers. Slavery being one error. We live moving forward in time and need fully integrated honesty (FIH) and wide-scope accounting (WSA) to advance the protection and defense of individual/property rights. Which are the only valid functions of government
That concept is opposite of what the government has been doing for 150 years that they are not going to do an about face. I mean, it's like expecting to get a rational discussion from Osama bin Laden. It just isn't going to happen.
Think about the huge number of unconstitutional laws. Think about all the politicians that violated their oath of office to the people and the constitution. They aren't going to fess up until they're thoroughly exposed for the parasitical elite that they are. And then we won't want politicians we'll want business-minded people to gut the waste and abuse from government and focus only on protecting and defending individual/property rights.
One amendment they will make to the constitution would be something similar to this:
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
* * *
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law nullifies agenda law and ego law.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them or their property there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as true as physics law.
* * *
When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or Samaritan) may exercise their highest moral right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person confronts another person unless invited to associate with another person. Too many busybodies (basically harmless unless the busybody is one of the parasitical elite) telling other people how to live their lives.
* * *
Value Destroyers versus Value Producers
If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
The old code that people live by; do unto others as you would have others do unto you, is obsolete. The new code is to leave people alone to create their life as they see fit.
I agree. Most people that care to engage in discussion to learn are rational. They will defend what they believe but they will also learn along the way and replace ignorance with valid knowledge. Roscoe wouldn't appeal to them. He acts like a tenured college professor. On this forum we have no grades to make for him. He has no intimidation to shoot us down before the class to save face. Plus many Freepers that put forth well reasoned arguments are older and have more experience being their own authority than allowing a professor to take over as the authority.
So Roscoe, when you go to your taxpayer-funded job, you are, in fact, wiping your jackboots on the Constitution of the Republic. The day will come when people like you are treated like Nazis and Stalinists. In many places, that day is already here: how many federal LEOs have ANY friends outside of those that also work for the government? How many of the people really support you? How many could you turn your back on without wearing a Kevlar vest?
That's the way I see it. You can't justify the Commerce Clause as granting the authority to wage the WoD unless you subscribe to the "living, breathing document" crap that the liberals put forth.
As long as you are more afraid of something than you are losing your freedom, those that think you have too much freedom will play on that fear, and use it to get you to give up your freedom willingly. For some, all it takes is for a bureaucrat to utter the word "narcotics" and they pee all over themselves and try to give away the store.
unless you subscribe to the "living, breathing document"Roscoe already said as much, in claiming that things that were not invented in the times of the Founders can be regulated by the federal government pretty much at the federal government's whim - no enabling amendments required.
And, of course, the slippery bugger has yet to answer if he is a fedgovteatfeeder. I'd bet anyone lunch at a Crystal City greasy-spoon he is some kind of PR flack for the DEA.
What we need is a new "New Federalism" that takes big blocks of laws and creates coordinated state laws that take over those functions so that things like the Drug War and The War on the West can be abandoned non-disruptively as individual states see their own ways out of these travesties and fiascos.
...exemplified by Dicken's Ebinezer Scrooge character.Wow, that name Cultural Jihad takes on ever more interesting meanings as you keep posting. It is revolvting, yet compelling, to be offered a glimpse into a mind so undeveloped yet so set in concrete. Scrooge as a Social Darwinist? Read a book, dude.
It wouldn't, because prohibition is NOT a form of regulation. Common usage, or even legal terminology does NOT equate the two words.
and as the Supreme Court has consistently held, Congess may exercise its regulatory power to its utmost extent.
Yep. -- Within the bounds of the constitution.
Do you have any authority, any quotes, any cites to support the contention that Congress may not prohibit? Even one?
9th & 10th amendments. - And, by the very fact that it was deemed necessary to use the amendment process in the 18ths attempt to prohibit booze nation wide, and again in the 21st, Sec 2, in its prohibition on transport/import into states.
Nearly all of the states have bills of rights in their constitutions that contain language that declare that all rights are retained by the people.
For example, Section 1. of Virginia's: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
State governments, just like the federal government, are limited by their constitutions in the powers that they are granted over individuals. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a constitution?
I don't see in this thread where anyone has asked the statism addicts to give an example of something that the government can NOT do to the individual. The addicts apparantly believe that our federal and state constitutions were mere starter lists of suggestions for how power might begin to be wielded, with no end to it ever contemplated.
They twist pre-amble language that says (I paraphrase), "For the general purpose of establishing happiness, only specific powers A, B, and C are granted" to "The government may establish general happiness by any means necessary."
The intellectual dishonesty of most of the statism addicts on this thread is insulting and most of them are a long way away from taking the 1st step that they must take in order to rid themselves of their dependence on violating the rights of their neighbors.
Lately, I have been thinking about the idea of agreeing to even more absurd INCREASES in the lengths of state power in exchange for getting something in return that might help get the statists to take the first Step and admit that they have a problem.
For example, we could allow people like Roscoe and CJ to set up roadblocks and stick giant needles in the heads of all who pass through. Based on the readings of the gauges on the ends of the needles, Roscoe and CJ could determine the brain chemical correctness of each traveler...But, for each traveler that requests it, Roscoe and CJ would have to read aloud the natural rights language from our constitutions and admit to the traveler that they are addicted to violating the plain simple language that they read aloud.
Wrong. Congress did not prohibit the sale of whiskey. They only put a reasonable tax on it. When producers failed to pay the tax, they were in violation of the tax laws. This is not in any way similar to prohibiting something. But I am sure you knew that.
680 posted by LloydofDSS
-------------------------------------
Our early Congress prohibited its sale, they smashed the stills in which it was manufactured, and they confiscated and destroyed the whiskey itself.
You've embraced an absurd falsehood regarding prohibition, and have no credible authority to back the meritless assertion.
Where did it come from? Where did you hear it?
- # 687 - roscoe -
-----------------------------------------------
Here we see roscoes deliberate denial of logic & the simple meaning of words. - He insists that a tax law be viewed as a 'prohibition' law.
Incredible, twisted sophistry.
TV is a drug. It's dangerous. It creates stupid, uninformed citizens. If I could outlaw it I wouldn't. People need to suffer the consequences of their own mistakes.
735 posted by Demidog
And who says they have no choices or do not suffer consequences? Jail is a consequence to evil behaviors just as much as starvation and disease are. We note that you compared the human race to a herd of wild animals, decying the fact that a compassionate society deems humans as having a greater value than that of deer or wild boar.
'WE' note? The imperial, irrational we/you, that uses silly tar baby comparisions of human/animal values? How funny. Thanks.
You compare the high-powered hunting rifle with the modern drug which culls the herd and makes it strong. Such a twisted mind you have. Your cruel words make you sound like a social-Darwinist Aryan Nation freak, or another Ebinezer Scrooge decying the "surplus population." Some "humanist" you are! -- CJ - #741
Your absurd stretches of logic are only rivaled by roscoes. Thanks again for the morning belly laughs. -- Great start on a new year.
But libertarianism isn't about dope and getting high. Not at all.
So much for libertarians pretending to mind their own bidness as they stick their noses into other people's.
Such questions are perfectly logical from a self defense standpoint, CJ. Your mental health, your propensities to post violent images, etc. on this board, and your access to weapons are all valid concerns for those who post here.
This, apparently, means we that we should regard his every thought as illumined enlightenment.
[another absurd stretch from the cultists]
So you admit you believe the state has a role in caring for the weak?
Please point to the post where someone said they should have free dope.
But he dances around that issue like Bill Clinton on a witness stand. If you put it to him directly, he will pull a handful of words out of you post that he can reply to out of context, and try to steer the discussion in a different direction. If you continue to press it, he'll disappear for awhile and come back later when the discussion has moved on.
And, of course, the slippery bugger has yet to answer if he is a fedgovteatfeeder. I'd bet anyone lunch at a Crystal City greasy-spoon he is some kind of PR flack for the DEA.
Considering the way he treats those CSA findings like dogma, I think you may be onto something.
All the usual suspects...
By such "reasoning", the power to tax sales wouldn't include the power to prohibit the sale of untaxed items, and the power to regulate the quality of foods sold in interstate commerce wouldn't include the power to prohibit the sale of rotten meat.
Cultists will believe anything.
Thought I caught the stench of Roe here. Killing babies and smoking crack is the same as the RTKBA?
I think you might have missed my last point as well. Due to the 14th Amendment, that Feds have a selective perogative to force the recognition of certain rights down on the states. But to do this, as a practical matter, one must have an enumerated right. That is the problem with Roe v. Wade, as opposed to, say, the enforcement of the feds on the states of the anti-discrimination laws: it is not a written federal law that establishes a right for the 14th Amendment to apply to, and it is not harking back on such a law, and nowhow was it a good idea for the Judiciary to get into the enumerated rights business absent a law to harken to. That is why we use the phrase "legislating from the bench" about this particular law, and not about, say, the school anti-segregation laws.
Be that as it may, that is a different battle for a different time. Right now, I want my federal Constitution returned to me.
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.