The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government

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

[tpaine]

What a joke you are roscoe..

-- You lack the honesty to admit you 'comprehend' the point of Thomas's quote.
46 posted by tpaine

---

To: tpaine

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

47 posted by Roscoe

---

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

---

"You're utterly clueless as to the substance of the statement by Clarence Thomas."
-roscoe- repeats, inanely

[Roscoe]

Gee, Yappy, can't come up with a single point?

[DannyTN]

For some insane reason, I'm obsessed with this argument, despite the fact, that I don't think either side is presenting themselves well. In an attempt to bring clarity, I'd like you both to answer the following questions.

True or False, qualifiecations are allowed

1. The Commerce clause gives Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American life.
2. The current court test on the commerce clause "if taken to it logical extreme, would give Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American Life."
3. Federal Drug laws have a constitutional basis in the Commerce clause.
4. Federal Gun laws have a constitutional basis in the commerce clause.
5. The Commerce clause has been properly limited by the courts.
6. The Commerce clause has been properly limited by the current court tests.
7. The Commerce clause has been properly limited by the bill of rights.
8. The Commerce clause has been properly limited by case law.
9. The Commerce clause gives Congress too much authority.
10. Thomas was right about the Commerce clause.
11. Thomas was right about the current court test giving unlimited police power.
12. Thomas was right about case law having put some limits on the commerce clause.

[tpaine]

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

60 -roscoe- makes another point NOT at issue, --- in an effort to divert the issue away from the fact that he approves of the Commerce Clause being used to permit Congress to exercise a police power.

[tpaine]

Good luck getting ANY straight answers from roscoe.. Many at FR have tried.. ALL have failed..

[I'll be glad to answer, after we have established that roscoe will not.]

[DannyTN]

Well, I'm hoping that by breaking it down that way, that it will highlight the areas where you disagree. This will enable you to actually argue about individual points, instead of just calling each other stupid and dishonest.

[inquest]

Not having a bright line creates problems. Drawing such a line can be just as problematic.

Again, the purpose of this exercise of judicial interpretations and precedents and such, is to provide additional clarity to the more general phrases of the Constitution, not to come up with something that's just as muddy if not worse.

In other words, drawing lines is their job! Surely Thomas is intelligent enough to understand that. We can then conclude that he was saying that the court was failing to do their job. Although they haven't taken the doctrine to its logical conclusion (according to him), they also haven't provided a clear reason why they haven't, and that's an abandonment of duty on their part.

[DannyTN]

Or more likely...it will allow you to argue about specific points, in addition to calling each other stupid and dishonest.

[DannyTN]

"In other words, drawing lines is their job! Surely Thomas is intelligent enough to understand that. We can then conclude that he was saying that the court was failing to do their job. Although they haven't taken the doctrine to its logical conclusion (according to him), they also haven't provided a clear reason why they haven't, and that's an abandonment of duty on their part."

Hey, that's not a bad explanation.

[Roscoe]

1 The Commerce clause gives Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American life.

False.

2 The current court test on the commerce clause "if taken to it logical extreme, would give Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American Life."

False premise. The court has declined to permit such an attempted justification in a number of cases, including Lopez. Further, you offered nothing to suggest that the substantial effects doctrine represents the entirety of the court's means of testing legislation.

Your turn. How should the court gauge the limits of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause?

[Roscoe]

In other words, drawing lines is their job!

Says who? Their job is to decide cases and controversies.

[inquest]

How, by flipping a coin? Or is it by coming up with clear expositions of the meaning of the law in question?

If the latter, then that means drawing lines as to what the law does and does not say.

[Roscoe]

How, by flipping a coin?

By applying the law.

[inquest]

Then the rest of my post applies completely.

[Roscoe]

Applies to what? Meaningless noise.

[tpaine]

"Your turn" bump, danny boy..

Let's see how long you can argue roscoes 'points' without calling him dishonest..

[I've been trying to reason with the man for 5 years or so]

[Roscoe]

No points made, no questions answered. Same old.

[DannyTN]

"Your turn. How should the court gauge the limits of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause?"

Well, in my mind, the Commerce clause should be limited to true issues of trade. "Substantially impacts" does need definition.

In general I support the regulation of drug use and possession at the national level, because we want permeable borders between states. And local regulation is made ineffective by permeable borders.

However, I do worry that by extending the Commerce clause to such matters that we have unduly expanded the power of Congress. I don't understand why alcohol prohibition needed admendments and yet drugs are covered under the commerce clause.

I do not see how carrying a firearm within range of a school, is in any way, a "substantial impact" of trade. That is clearly a local jusidictional issue that has little to do with trade. The Feds can and should publish guidelines for the states. But the Feds should neither directly regulate nor be allowed to tie funding to such local administrative matters.

Guns have a similar conflict with permeable borders. One state cannot effective ban them. But since possession being protected by the Bill of Rights nationwide and banning is not at all a good idea, gun control resolves to local not national jurisdictions.

Certain types of weapons, such as major explosives and WMD, of course have a national interest and should be regulated at the national level. But when it comes to nationwide bans, or nationwide licensing or registration, the authority to do that should be made explicit and not left loosely under "Commerce".

[x]

My point was that if the Constitution had been drafted in 1900 or 2000, the Framers would probably have recognized the difficulty of leaving regulation of production in state hands. GM and Walmart are involved in interstate -- indeed global -- commerce. The problem that we see today of businesses leaving areas with stricter environmental, wage, product purity, and health and safety laws for those where such laws are looser and shipping the products back to other locales would have been apparent to them, and it's likely that they would have taken steps for more uniform regulation across state lines.

So, as Tauzero said, some form of change would have been inevitable. There was a long-standing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for federal prohibition of child labor. Such an amendment -- and perhaps others -- would have gone through, had FDR's takeover of the bureaucracy and the courts not achieved the same result.

Richman wants to believe that the Founders wanted the federal government to be something like the World Trade Organization today. Maybe they did. It's certainly a likely conclusion. But there are other matters that he doesn't take into account.

[Roscoe]

I do not see how carrying a firearm within range of a school, is in any way, a "substantial impact" of trade.

And the Court rejected that law.