Posted on 07/15/2010 10:16:49 AM PDT by mukraker
We have a LOT of smart people at FR. I'd like to tap some of that brainpower, and come up with language to be included in a new Constitutional Amendment.
We've seen how all three branches of our government have perverted the Commerce Clause of our Constitution. (Article 1, Section 8) That clause reads "Congress shall have the power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
The list of abuses of this clause is too long to enumerate here. Rather, I'd like to enlist your help to limit that power.
"The Power of Congress to regulate commerce shall be limited."
OK, there's the start. Now, how shall we limit that power? (Remember, keep it concise.)
The unions are powerful in CA, and taxes are onerous. Toyota has moved their assembly lines to other states.
Can the CA legislature dictate than no car can be sold in the state of CA unless it came off an assembly line located in the state, and the corporate headquaters of the company building them is located in, and paying their state income taxes to the state of California?
They've placed the same restricions on all the automobile manufactures.
If California can do that with cars, or anything else, what will be the effect on interstate commerce if they do it, and then other states follow suit to protect their own industries and tax base?
> And your “Model Government”? What powers do they have? At what level do they function? (community, city, etc ...).
I’m in favor of zero involuntary social contact, which necessarily implies zero government. We are so far from that circumstance that there is not much point in worrying about it, for now. What we’re talking about here is what language to eliminate from the constitution to cut the federal leviathan down to a manageable size. I’m winning the debate, but that’s simply because I’m kicking the stilts out from under the whole monstrous machine: The text I propose to eliminate is precisely the language that gives the federal government its tyrannical powers.
If people reading here would like to see, in broad outlines, how a mutually-voluntary civilization could work, see me here:
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=11437
Please note, especially if you think an hysterical lack of self-control is an intellectual argument, that that essay is off-topic for this discussion.
> Once established, how exactly are their powers limited/what prevents them from expanding upon them?
God did not make men equal. Colonel Colt made men equal. If you’re not willing to fight for your freedom, you are a slave. This is not difficult to understand.
Not exactly. The dealership is licensed in the state as an official agent of the automaker and is subhect to the states jurisdiction.
Can the CA legislature dictate than no car can be sold in the state of CA unless it came off an assembly line located in the state, and the corporate headquaters of the company building them is located in, and paying their state income taxes to the state of California?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that the auto makers will comply, and, as green as the left coast is - I doubt the people would be happy if no new cars could be sold in the state because of some silly act of thier legislature...
If California can do that with cars, or anything else, what will be the effect on interstate commerce if they do it, and then other states follow suit to protect their own industries and tax base?
Obviously this would be suboptimal (LOL). However, as it would be insane for almost any major manufacturer to have plants "everywhere" - it would likewise be insane for states to begin making such laws! 200 years ago perhaps, since most things NEEDED to be produced locally as the cost and risk of transport was too expensive.
I contend that a broad definition of what the commerce clause to allow regulation of intrastate is the exact opposite of it's original intent as it gives the Federal Government the power to regulate - theoretically - all the way into you bedroom.
Okay Greg, I understand.
You want nation wide anarchy and the rule of the fittest.
Good Luck.
> Okay Greg, I understand.
Very gaceful concession, all things considered.
> Okay Greg, I understand.
Very graceful concession, all things considered.
I agree the "substantial effects" doctrine needs to go, but I still contend that the original intent of the Commerce Clause would disallow a state imposing an embargo for the same reasons it would disallow imposing an import tax, duty, or tariff. The are all equally destructive to interstate commerce.
the clause disallowing what you claim is in article 1 section 10 - not 8!
;D
If you think I've misunderstood that, then show me the historical evidence that contradicts it and I'll consider and discuss it. If you can't take what I've said in that context, I have no more interst in you or your amendment, and you can go pound sand.
I have been polite and proper in every response to you - so if that is how you deal with someone who has an honest disagreement with you - then it is
who can poud sand!
Good Day.
Okay. Pass your amendment by yourself.
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.