Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic

Well, in light of this citation I have to agree with you. There may be many circumstances where the states should retain authority in interstate commerce. And policing that commerce. This statement makes very good sense, thank you for presenting it.


53 posted on 08/10/2006 8:05:16 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: phoenix0468
Sorry if I sounded harsh earlier, but the "substantial effects" doctrine has allowed Congress to continually expand the power and authority of the federal government into areas it was not origially intended to regulate.

I will agree that as things change there may be some areas where it is appropriate to grant Congress that power but it isn't supposed to be convenient or easy. The process of amendment is there to modify the balance of power between the States and the general government. It isn't supposed to be "efficient", and it is that way on purpose and for good reasons. The idea that simply because a majority of Congress voted for it and the President signed off on it is sufficient to make it a valid exercise of the ommerce power is an abject subversion of that intent.

54 posted on 08/11/2006 5:34:12 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson