Posted on 04/26/2002 12:36:50 PM PDT by ForOurFuture
I think we have a winner!
You have obviously hit the nail on the head - as evidenced by the excessive use of the term "Neo-con" by Chris Matthews. His motivation is clearly to divide conservatives i.e. divide and conquer.
Please don't misunderstand me. For all our sakes you should throw all your time & attention behind this very important free speech issue.
In fact I believe Thomas Jefferson had this very kind of speech in his mind when he penned those sacred lines over 200 years ago.
Agreed. That's the perfect litmus test.
Could you (or someone) please explain FDR's Commerce Clause? I'm not familiar with it. Thanks!
Oh boy. Okay, here goes. The Commerce Clause is in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the relevant part amounts to "to regulate commerce among the several states".
The original intent of having this phrase added was to prevent the states from enacting trade barriers and engaging in destructive interstate trade wars. The commonly understood meaning of "regulate" at the time was "to make regular; to keep in good working order". This is easily demonstrated by looking at the phrase "a well regulated militia" found in the Second amendment.
FDR convinced the USSC (coerced is actually a more accurate term - look up the Court Packing Bill for details) to substitute the more recent definition - "to exercise control or have authority over" to the term "regulate", and to agree to the idea that any commerce was potentially interstate commerce, and that anything that could be bought, sold, or traded was potentially commerce.
Thus, he established the authority of the federal government to control anything you own that could conceiveably be bought, sold, or traded, or anything you do that could result in goods or services changing hands, and even to control what you do that could result in goods or services not changing hands that otherwise might have (see Wickard v. Filburn).
Under FDR's interpretation, the Commerce Clause has become a virtual "blank check" Congress can write for seemingly any authority it wants, as long as it can show some potential affect on commerce, however peripheral.
Prior to FDR, that meant the would see to it that the voltage and phasing were within the specified limits and that the cabling and other infrastructure were up to the load you might reasonably put on it.
After FDR, it meant they could come into your home and dictate what appliances you could or could not own (even if you never intended to plug them in), when you could use them, and for what purpose.
That his approach is working is evidenced by the fact that whenever he appears in public he is required to be accompanied by bodyguards! Were the left not afraid of him, this would not be necessary.
By the way, welcome to FreeRepublic lightbringer - Enjoy!
FR's very own Torie is an example of a neo-con. You may not always agree with Torie but it would serve you well to read what he has to say.
Oh, you're talking about the .00005 percenters.
Boy, he'd last about 20 minutes on this forum.
The fall of the Iron Curtain, the pope's embrace of capitalism,
and the progress of the conservative movement in America
are just some of the vindications of Meyer's efforts.
It won't help. Believe 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.