The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp ^ | August 1995 | Sheldon Richman

[sourcery]

FYI

[Support Free Republic]

Got a minute?

I'd really like you to rub my ears,
or help out FR.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I blame the change on the 17th Amendment, which put Senators in office who no longer had to protect the interest of State Governments in order to hold onto their Senate seat.

[ellery]

bttt

[Held_to_Ransom]

I blame the change on the 17th Amendment, which put Senators in office who no longer had to protect the interest of State Governments in order to hold onto their Senate seat.

While that was a lamentable and unnecessary change, it was hardly earth shattering beyond the fact that it perhaps typified an all too great willingness to abandon the Constitution in general. In fact though, there were many sound reasons behind all of those steps listed above, and the country vastly benefited from many of them. It is true though that the process has now started to go too far and needs to be trimmed back considerably, but, hopefully, intelligently.

Without a doubt though, the miracle of the US would never have happened without a strong central government. Sadly though, too, it needed strong state governments, and the fact that historically many of these were neither honest nor competent is the primary reason that the central government got such a start on reinventing the constitution. The key to all of this was the poor quality of education for so long in so many parts of this country, and at the moment, many parts of this country seem to be working back to that instead of away from it.

[MamaTexan]

the power to "regulate . . . commerce among the several states."

I always thought it meant just what it said.
Between the entities known as 'states',or among the entities known as 'states' (such as New York buying cotton from Texas).
Not actual movement between one location and another.

[Eastbound]

The Commerce Clause and treaties (via 'offenses against the laws of nations), the left and right hands of force being used to re-shape America into a tribute to fascism.

[gcruse]

Consider the following statements by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in U. S. v. Lopez (1995):

We have said that Congress may regulate not only 'Commerce…among the several states,'…but also anything that has a 'substantial effect' on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American life.

Under our jurisprudence, if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence, the Act apparently would be constitutional. Justice Thomas went on to state that under the substantially affects interstate commerce test adopted by the Court, "[c]ongress can regulate whole categories of activities that are not themselves either 'interstate or commerce.'"

[Eastbound]

"Under our jurisprudence, if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence, the Act apparently would be constitutional."

Precisely what happened. The feds' grab for state and municipal power has been totally successful. Color of law is the rule of law throughout the land.

[Gumption]

That's beautiful, just beautiful.

It's funny though ... a Supreme Court Justice merely possessing a grasp of the obvious makes them an absolute f-in' genius in my eyes.

[First_Salute]

Route to omnipotent government by judiciary.

[Eastbound]

"Route to omnipotent government by judiciary."

And Congress itself, which allowed every repugnant law against the Constitution, against state's sovereignty, and against the unalienable rights of every Citizen to be passed.

[Eastbound]

FYI

[x]

Technological change increased the volume and significance of interstate commerce. What would the Framers have written if they composed the Constitution in an age of railroads, automobiles, airplanes, steam engines, and electricity? To be sure, there have been abuses of the commerce clause, but wasn't a greater federal role inevitable?

[tahiti]

"Under our jurisprudence, if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence, the Act apparently would be constitutional."

There is constitutional protection from the "commerce clause."

It is the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunatley, very few judges wish to apply the Bill of Rights as a constitutional safeguard from the expansion of the "commerce clause."

For example, the "commerce clause" gives the federal congress the constitutional "power" to regulate newspapers.

But Amendment I prohibits the federal congress from "regulating" the content of newspapers.

Applying Amendment V (...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation) and Amendment IX (The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people) would put the brakes on the federal abuse of the "commerce clause."

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump

[tpaine]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in U. S. v. Lopez (1995):
"We have said that Congress may regulate not only 'Commerce…among the several states,'…but also anything that has a 'substantial effect' on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American life."


Under our jurisprudence, if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence, the Act apparently would be constitutional. Justice Thomas went on to state that under the substantially affects interstate commerce test adopted by the Court, "[c]ongress can regulate whole categories of activities that are not themselves either 'interstate or commerce.'"
9 -gcruse-

---

Let's call up FR's foremost defender of the commerce clause & 'police powers', -- Mr Roscoe, -- for his opinion on how Justice Thomas errs...

[Roscoe]

Justice Thomas errs...

He didn't. Your stupidity is not his error.

[tpaine]

You now agree with the quoted Thomas position on the commerce clause?