We will not return our country to constitutional government overnight. It will require a continual assault at all levels, including especially, the states. Good on VA!
Posted on 01/26/2011 11:55:38 AM PST by RepublicnotaDemocracy
Today, the Virginia House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1438 (HB1438), the Intrastate Commerce Act. The bill, “Provides that all goods produced or manufactured within the Commonwealth, when such goods are held, retained, or maintained in the Commonwealth, shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the constitutional power of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”
The vote was 65-33.
For decades, using a tortured definition of “interstate commerce,” Congress has claimed the authority to regulate, control, ban, or mandate virtually everything – from wheat grown on one’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individual’s own home for the same purpose, to guns manufactured, sold and kept in state boundaries, and everything in between. And, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has largely condoned and even encouraged such reprehensible legislative behavior.
But today, Virginia is once again leading the way in saying “Back Off” to the feds – by standing up for the Constitution as the founders gave it to us.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
We will not return our country to constitutional government overnight. It will require a continual assault at all levels, including especially, the states. Good on VA!
This is the same John Warner who married Elizabeth Taylor?
No accounting for good sense or taste, I see.
Don’t break out the champagne yet. This still has to get through our wretched state Senate.
Ping-a-ling. Seen this one? Thoughts?
LOL!
That’s something incredible to behold, but will it become law in VA?
.The contingent of Federal troops was met and repelled on the northern outskirts of Richmond County by a well-armed 150,000-strong blend of volunteer militias and Virginia National Guardsmen, who outflanked the Federals from all sides.
You are talking about the Feds, right?
They only attack the helpless and those who won't fight back. Fe'ral agents still want to go home and eventually enjoy that lavish pension.
>If this bill is enacted, wouldn’t that de-claw the US Supreme Court since they, being the federal government, would no longer have jurisdiction?
Blaise Pascal said — “It is not permitted to the most equitable of men to be a judge in his own cause.”
That being said, I *HIGHLY* doubt the USSC [US Supreme Court] would allow this to stand: it is far too much of a reduction of their own powers. Given that there are *many* people who believe that the Constitution says whatever the USSC says it says — that is that the Constitution is subordinate to the USSC — there is a good chance that they could get away with it as well.
1 — Makes it perfectly legal to machine & sell fully-automatic firearms w/i VA.
2 — Cuts the EPA’s mandates to virtually noting.
3 — Pokes a *BIG* stick into the federal government’s eye.
Try it. “Sic Semper tyrannus” is carved in stone on our state buildings.
I have mixed feelings about this effort by Virginny if it's intended to be an end in itself. By doing so, and IMHO, they cede the ground that the feral government has the powers to regulate EVERYTHING else. Something our Founders NEVER envisioned. If this is just a first step towards a larger purpose, it might be worth it.
Thoughts from the group???
Depends what way Norfolk, Quantico, Lee, A.P Hill and Oceana swing...Virginia could probably invade a European country of your choice.
Agreed
You hit on all the salient points. Getting us started in the right direction cannot be a bad thing.
Great idea, but we keep getting excited here about some bill that passes ONE CHAMBER of a state’s government, only to see it flounder and die in the other chamber. [Arizona for example]
Let us know when it is ready for the Gov’s signature
This has probably been mentioned already, but would that include firearms, ammunition and attachments? I’m just getting to this thread now.
by D.T. Armentano, Mises.orgArticle one Section 8 of the U S Constitution states that the “congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states….” This so-called “commerce clause” is the legal bedrock for all federal regulation of business activity that crosses state lines. Every piece of federal economic regulation from the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) to all of the 1930s New Deal securities and banking law has been rationalized (made “constitutional”) by reference to the commerce clause.
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) , the Supreme Court expanded the original interpretation of the commerce clause to cover intrastate economic activity that was said to “affect” interstate commerce. Wickard grew wheat for his own consumption but the court reasoned that the wheat locally consumed could, theoretically, have been sold in interstate commerce; so when Wickard “withdrew” that wheat and consumed it, output and prices in interstate commerce were affected.
Hence the Feds could regulate locally grown wheat and the legislation that prescribed that was constitutional. The “logic” of Wickard obliterated two original and important constitutional principles, namely (1) that the states can regulate their own commerce, not the Feds and (2) that the federal Constitution embodies only limited and clearly enumerated powers.
Wickard substantiated the notion that the Feds could now regulate ANY economic activity (with little resistance from individuals or the states) since almost ANY good or service produced and consumed locally could, at least theoretically, affect interstate commerce.
We have all lived in a post-Wickard regulatory world ever since. So in some sense, the medical marijuana case decided June 6th, 2005 (Gonzales v Raich, et al..) in favor of the government (6-3) was an easy slam dunk (see also S. Kinsella’s post on the topic).
Reich and the other defendants in California grew marijuana for their own consumption but the majority asserted, following Wickard, that such private activity “affected” interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated (prohibited) by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of California state law which allowed (with supervision) such activity. If you don’t like the decision, the majority suggested, get the votes and attempt to change the federal drug laws.
There are many problems with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens. The most obvious is the continued acceptance of the logic of Wickard. As Justice Thomas argues in his brilliant dissent, if growing 6 marijuana plants on your own property for your own consumption is “economic activity” that can “affect” interstate commerce, then there is absolutely nothing under the economic sun (including pot luck dinners) that cannot be regulated by the federal congress. But, clearly, that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
But even more fundamentally, the Commerce Clause itself was never meant by the Founders to be a blank check for “command and control” economic regulation. Indeed, the economic purpose of Article one Section 8 was almost precisely the opposite of the conventional explanation accepted by the majority in this case.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.
And since the explicit language of the CSA, like all economic regulation, interferes with the free flow of commerce, it is inherently antithetical to the original intent of the Commerce Clause. (Whether the law could be legitimized by reference to the “police powers” of the state is another matter).The commerce clause was never meant to prohibit sick individuals from consuming plants grown on their own property. Yet to acknowledge that fact, the Supreme Court majority would have had to rethink the core principles of individual liberty and the entire legal foundations of our regulatory society. And that they chose not to do.
Dominick T. Armentano is professor emeritus at the University of Hartford, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, a member of the editorial board of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure and Antitrust: The Case for Repeal
Copyright Mises Institute, Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
My understanding is the same as yours. The commerce clause was intended to promote free trade among the states. It was never intended to be a tool used to expand the power of the Federal Government.
I neglected to thank you for the ping to this thread so, thanks! ;^) The fire of freedom in America has almost gone out. With some kindling and stoking, maybe we will see it burning brightly once again. God be with us.
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.
