The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government

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

[Roscoe]

You now agree

You now have fingers?

[tpaine]

Then you agree that the federal drug prohibition laws have no constitutional basis?

[Roscoe]

Your stupidity is not his error.

[tpaine]

Your stupidity is in supporting federal drug prohibition laws on the constitutional basis provided by the commerce clause..

[Roscoe]

Your attempt to misrepresent Clarence Thomas failed. Again.

[tpaine]

Roscoe, 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."



Can you agree?

[Roscoe]

"We have said that Congress may regulate not only Commerce . . . among the several states, U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3, 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. Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula. Although we have supposedly applied the substantial effects test for the past 60 years, we always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal power."

[tpaine]

I agree with that quote.

You don't, but won't admit it.

[Paul C. Jesup]

The Commerce Clause was originally meant to prevent the states from declaring economic war on each other, but like all the other parts of the Constitution, it has been corrupted to the point that it is used only for tyranny.

[Roscoe]

You don't even understand it.

[tpaine]

I agree with that quote.

You don't, but won't admit it, and instead make a lame, inane remark about 'understanding it'.

Make sense or get lost.

[coloradan]

Make sense or get lost.

You ask the impossible.

[DannyTN]

I haven't figured out anybody's position in this argument. This is like the ultimate un-argument.

[Roscoe]

What can I say? He wanted to argue about a statement by Clarence Thomas, without even having a relevant point to make regarding its meaning.

[gatex]

Most of the federal gun-control laws are based on interstate commerce.

For example, felons cannot possess guns or ammunition ---- that have been in interstate commerce [18 USC section922(g) ].

[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 the Justice Thomas statement above..

[tpaine]

tpaine:
Roscoe.. -- Make sense or get lost.

---

You ask the impossible.
32 coloradan

---

I know, -- and roscoe was kind enough to show us..
Gotta love it..

[Roscoe]

if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence

They haven't, your crackpot rantings notwithstanding.

[tpaine]

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-

---

"They haven't, your crackpot rantings notwithstanding."

crackpot -roscoe- rants

---

Read much?

[Tauzero]

Excellent piece.

Even such things as the Americans with Disabilities Act cite as their justification the commerce clause.

That's simply ludicrous on its face to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with, say, the federalist papers, let alone Marshal's 1824 opinion.

As I'm sure many, if not most in Congress are, which is prima facia evidence of their dishonesty. How they can live with themselves is beyond me.