A "Commerce Clause Amendment"

Vanity | 8/20/2011 | frithguild

[frithguild]

The interests of each constituent group in the Democrat Party coalition shows how distorted our federal government has become, all due to the errors of the Supreme Court.

Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) found that federal regulation of meat packing to prevent price fixing permissable because the regulated activity had an "affect" on commerce. And the trust busting Teddy Roosevelt smiled. A generation later, the New Deal took root in the the redefinition that consideration of an "impact" or "effect" on commerce permits.

Justice Thomas filed a brilliant concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) discusing basically that engrafting a substantial effect or impact upon commerce "test" has given rise to an all encompassing federal police power (Not a very good one line summary - a project for another day - I highly recommend reading the whole thing). The interesting point is that, in argument, the government could not describe a limit to the power the effect or impact test implies. The Thomas concurrence states a belief that the effect or impact on commerce test should be limited, but that the Court lacks the power to sweep away 50 years worth of precident. So the emperor may have no clothes, but the tailor who made him that way has no cloth.

The Court's consideration of Obamacare will result in the revisiting of this issue. Amicus brefis have asked the Court to examine the limit of Commerce Power, with the substantial impact or effect test. I do not trust this Court to do the right thing.

Right now, the House has steered the debate to implementing a balanced budget amendment. That is fine, but it does not address the root issue. Comerce power, as the framers understood it, deprived the federal government from involving itself in 90% of what it does today. We need amend the Constitution to add 13 words, a "Commerce Power Amendment":

"U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 3 is amended to state: 'To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (1) WITHOUT (2) CONSIDERATION (3) OF (4) AN (5) IMPACT (6) OR (7) EFFECT (8) ON (9) COMMERCE (10) WITHIN (11) AN (12) INDIVIDUAL (13) STATE."

Something like this will reach the public consciousness, only if things "go pear shaped." So that is my rant for the day.

[screaminsunshine]

Lets tell that to the Collaborators in the GOP. Reducing and eliminating the Federal Bureaucracy is not on the table. Why?

[filbert]

Terry Pratchett is fond of writing “going all pear-shaped” in his various books . . .

[trek]

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

Or how about this language?p

[Straight Vermonter]

I’m familiar with that case but that does not mean there is any chance of getting a commerce clause amendment passed.

[frithguild]

I had more in mind an economy going pear shaped - a little upside down, like this:

[frithguild]

There is simply no longer a need for the central government to regulate commerce between states.

You need to look at the history of the Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Westhpalia and the Zollverein.