The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government

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

[Roscoe]

Poor dishonest tpaine.

"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]

Poor roscoe.

I agree with that quote.

You don't, but are to dishonest to admit it.

[Roscoe]

I agree with that quote.

That the court has held the "substantial effects" test applicable to a wide, but not unlimited, range of cases? When have you ever said anything remotely like that?

[tpaine]

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."

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.'"

---

When have you ever said anything remotely like that? -- That the court has held the "substantial effects" test applicable to a wide, but not unlimited, range of cases?
-Roscoe- raves

---

Thomas said it, as quoted above..
I agree with the principles of his quote..

You don't, -- and are to dishonest to admit it.

[Roscoe]

I agree with the principles of his quote..

You don't even dimly comprehend them.

[tpaine]

What a joke you are roscoe..
-- You lack the honesty to admit you 'comprehend' the point of Thomas's quote.

[Roscoe]

He didn't mean that drug laws are unconstitutional. He's not an idiot.

[tpaine]

Thank you for proving my point, roscoe. -- To you the Commerce Clause permits Congress to exercise a police power.

[Roscoe]

Your ignorance exposed (again), it's time for you to try to yip and hide behind a straw man.

[Tauzero]

"To be sure, there have been abuses of the commerce clause, but wasn't a greater federal role inevitable?"

Probably. And since the constitution is difficult to amend, violating it may also have been inevitable.

[Tauzero]

"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."

Ironic, isn't it, how the free trade clause of the constitution is now the unfree trade clause.

[inquest]

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?

Not at all. Interstate commerce means the movement of goods between states. It doesn't matter if they're moved by ox or by railbox; it's still the same. None of this technological development changes the fact that Congress doesn't not have the power to regulate the internal matters of states merely on the theory that certain actions might have some effect on interstate commerce. No justification for such an interpretation at all.

[inquest]

At the very least, Thomas was questioning whether the "substantial effects" doctrine was valid at all. Whether or not he answered that question, he at least began to see that its logic is far from compelling.

[inquest]

doesn't not

[tpaine]

You're confusing roscoe by using the word 'logic'.

[Roscoe]

If taken to its logical extreme, which Thomas notes that the court has declined to do.

[tpaine]

Roscoe, why is it that when you restate the obvious it always seems to give you the daft delusion you've made a clever retort?

Whatta clown.

[Roscoe]

You're utterly clueless as to the substance of the statement by Clarence Thomas. Try to say something, anything, about what it means.

That should be amusing.

[inquest]

And then right after that statement, he says "Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula."

Put the two together and what do you come up with? I don't know about you, but I come up with a judge who's wondering whether this is the right formula.

Typically, when judges come up with a particular doctrine, they're supposed to be able to take it to its logical consequences without destroying the intent behind it. That's the whole idea behind interpretive doctrines in the first place.

[Roscoe]

And then right after that statement, he says "Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula."

And then he says that there have been decisions where the doctrine did not prevail. Not having a bright line creates problems. Drawing such a line can be just as problematic.

Thomas has NOT called for the abandonment of that method of analysis.