Replies

"The power to 'regulate' commerce includes the powers to license those enterprises which engage in such exchanges, and to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling, transport, and routing of goods and services, but not prohibition of the content or terms of such exchanges. It includes the power to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, but not criminal penalties, such as the deprivation of life or liberty. -- "

_____________________________________

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

Government licensing, in general, violates the libertarian rule of non-initiation of force. The government itself threatens to first use force against someone for carrying out perfectly peaceful activities.
Here the Constitution and libertarianism conflict, with libertarianism standing independent of and going beyond the Constitution in articulating the proper rights of sovereign individuals.

We are free to try to change the Constitution on the 'Commerce' power. -- But I see our best chance at real change is to challenge it as Montana intends.
States have the power to force the issue over excessive fed powers. But good luck on getting a State to relinquish its power to license.

_____________________________________

But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

Libertarians don't accept "the principles of our Constitution" as superior to libertarian principles, but as at best subordinate principles or parallel principles.

If you live in America & refuse to support the principles of our Constitution, then you cannot truly call yourself an rational libertarian, imho.

We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.
We are free to live elsewhere if we do not.

We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.

Most Americans don't swear to support the Constitution, so I don't understand you here. Obligated how?

We are free to live elsewhere if we do not.

We have the freedom to live here and not support the "principles of the Constitution", or to have even heard of them.