Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
randybarnett.com ^ | 6/9/05 | Randy Barnett

Posted on 06/09/2005 9:58:33 AM PDT by P_A_I

The power to regulate does not generally include the power to prohibit. 

 Samuel Johnson defines "to regulate" as "To adjust by rule or method. . . . To direct." In other words, the term "to regulate" means "to make regular."

The power to regulate is, in essence, the power to say, "if you want to do something, here is how you must do it." For example, the making of contracts and wills are "regulated" by the law of contracts and estates. To make an enforceable agreement for a sale of goods over five hundred dollars requires that the agreement be in writing. To make a will requires a specified number of witnesses to one's signature. These requirements regulate--or "make regular"--the making of contracts and wills by subjecting them to a rule or method.

The power to regulate the making of contracts or wills is not the power to prohibit such activity, even though contracts or wills that do not conform to the regulation are necessarily unenforceable. A pure regulation of commerce, then, is a set of rules that tells people, "If you want to trade or exchange with others, here is how you must go about it."

 In contrast, Johnson defines "to prohibit" as "1. To forbid; to interdict by authority. . . . 2. To debar; to hinder."

Forbidding, interdicting, and hindering are not the same thing as regulating, or "making regular," or adjusting by rule or method. It does not tell you how to do something, but instead tells you that you may not do it at all.

And in Johnson's dictionary, neither "to regulate" nor "to prohibit" is defined in terms of the other; each seems quite distinct. Indeed, both terms appear in the Constitution and the context in which they are used suggests that their meanings sharply differ.  Apart from the Commerce Clause, the terms "regulate" or "regulation" appear seven other times in the body of the Constitution and three times in the amendments proposed by Congress to the states, though only once in the Bill of Rights as ratified. The term "prohibit" is used once in the body of the Constitution and twice in the Bill of Rights. Article I, Section 4 gives Congress the power to "alter such Regulations" on the time, place, and manner of elections prescribed by state legislatures. Clearly, the power to regulate or facilitate elections is not the power to prohibit them. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to . . . regulate the Value" of money, not to prohibit the use of money or to "regulate" its value to zero.

 In two places the Constitution makes an explicit distinction between prohibition and regulation. Article III, Section 2 gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." By distinguishing "exceptions" from "regulations," the Constitution distinguished Congress's power to regulate or subject to rule the Court's appellate jurisdiction and its power to prohibit the Court from exercising its jurisdiction by making "exceptions" thereto.

If the power to make regulations included the power to prohibit that which is regulated, there would have been no need to give explicit power to Congress to make "exceptions" to appellate jurisdiction.  That the Constitution does not adopt the broader meaning of regulation as "to govern" is also reflected in Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."Here, the term "government" is coupled with "regulation" in a manner that makes clear that Congress has complete power to command or govern the army and navy, not merely the power to regulate them.

 Less clear, but still consistent with the distinction between "To regulate" and "to govern," is Congress's power in Article IV, Section 3 "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Congress clearly has the power to govern the territories, and the term "rules and regulations" suggests strongly that its powers are broader than merely regulatory, though it includes the power to make "regulations" as well as other needful "rules."

 That the Constitution uses the term "to regulate" in this sense is made plain by the Second Amendment, the first portion of which reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

A "well-regulated" militia is not a prohibited militia but one that is well drilled. Even those who read the Second Amendment as a "collective" rather than an individual right on the basis of this preface concede--indeed their theory requires them to insist--that the power to regulate the militia that the Constitution elsewhere confers upon Congress does not include the power to forbid or prohibit the militia. By their interpretation, the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of the state militias.

By the same token, the power of Congress to "well-regulate" commerce among the states does not include the power to forbid or prohibit commerce. James Madison described a direct parallel between the regulation of the militia and the regulation of commerce when he asked: How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other points? . . . How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided without a similar knowledge of some internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire.

 How do the debates in the state ratification debates bear out this distinction between the power "to regulate" and the power "to prohibit"?

The term "regulate" appears fifty-five times in all the records we have of the deliberations in the states. In every case where the context makes the meaning clear, the term connotes "subject to a rule" or "make regular" in the sense that "if you want to do something, here is how you should do it." As with the word "commerce," the term "regulate" is used with stunning uniformity--so much so that it would be tedious to reproduce the quotes here. And it is unnecessary because the term appears overwhelmingly in the context of regulatory powers that, as we observed in the intratextual discussion above, could not plausibly have included the power to prohibit such activities. These are references to the powers to regulate elections, jury trials, courts, militias, taxes, treaties, and the deliberations of the Senate In the rest, the term "regulate" is used in its ordinary sense, in some context other than the Constitution of the new government.

 There is, however, one now-obsolete passage of the Constitution that argues for a broader original meaning of the term "To regulate." Article I, Section 9, stipulates that the "Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year" 1808.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 2a; billofrights; conspiracy; constitution; constitutionlist; donutwatch; govwatch; libertarians; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
" --- Johnson defines "to prohibit" as "1. To forbid; to interdict by authority. . . . 2. To debar; to hinder."

Forbidding, interdicting, and hindering are not the same thing as regulating, or "making regular," or adjusting by rule or method. It does not tell you how to do something, but instead tells you that you may not do it at all. -- "

How many times must all levels of our governments be told that they do not have the power to prohibit?

1 posted on 06/09/2005 9:58:33 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

All forms of activity that require a license are prohibited. A license is defined as permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal. So driving is prohibited.


2 posted on 06/09/2005 10:03:48 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
For another perspective on the word, we have this excerpt from a 1785 letter from James Madison to James Monroe:
Much indeed is it to be wished, as I conceive, that no regulations of trade, that is to say, no restriction or imposts whatever, were necessary. A perfect freedom is the System which would be my choice. But before such a system will be eligible perhaps for the U. S. they must be out of debt; before it will be attainable, all other nations must concur in it.

3 posted on 06/09/2005 10:07:25 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agitator
Barnett:

" --- The power to regulate is, in essence [& within reasonable, constitutional bounds], the power to say, "if you want to do something, here is how you must [can] do it."

--- I added 'within reason' and 'can' rather than must..

-- I agree, licensing is just another way to prohibit, unless it is 'shall issue' legislation.

4 posted on 06/09/2005 10:21:31 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: agitator
"All forms of activity that require a license are prohibited."

A driver's license is to prove that you have fulfilled the "regulation" requirements the state imposes for driving, in other words that you took the test, and you have paid the "tax," as well.

You are not prohibited from driving without a license. If you do drive without a license and get caught, you are only going to be fined for not participating in the "regulation" process.

Otherwise, if driving is "prohibited" without a license then each driver would have to prove to "officials" possession of a valid license before starting their auto.

5 posted on 06/09/2005 10:22:17 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Randy Barnett is my hero.

I assume you have read his book "Restoring the Lost Constitution, A Presumption of Liberty."

I have three times.

What is amazing to me is some many "Freepers" when confronted with Prof. Barnett's "presumption of liberty," recoil in fear of liberty.

The most famous person of all who recoils in such fear is Rush Limbaugh.

6 posted on 06/09/2005 10:25:00 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Read further.. Sure, he admits we must have overall fed control over commerce but only with State acquiescence:

" --- How is this harmony to be obtained? only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority.
If Congress as they are now constituted, can not be trusted with the power of digesting and enforcing this opinion, let them be otherwise constituted: let their numbers be increased, let them be chosen oftener, and let their period of service be short[e]ned; or if any better medium than Congress can be proposed, by which the wills of the States may be concentered, let it be substituted;
-- or lastly let no regulation of trade adopted by Congress be in force untill it shall have been ratified by a certain proportion of the States.

But let us not sacrifice the end to the means: let us not rush on certain ruin in order to avoid a possible danger. I conceive it to be of great importance that the defects of the federal system should be amended, not only because such amendments will make it better answer the purpose for which it was instituted, but because I apprehend danger to its very existence from a continuance of defects which expose a part if not the whole of the empire to severe distress. -- "

So here we have it.. Severe State distress, no harmony, -- because the feds insist that they have the power to prohibit, rather than to reasonably regulate.

Why is that? What drives otherwise reasonable people to prohibitionism?
7 posted on 06/09/2005 10:42:48 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
I assume you have read his book "Restoring the Lost Constitution, A Presumption of Liberty."

I had him for a Constitutional law seminar where we basically read drafts of the manuscript for the book and helped him write it by discussing and providing critique. Best class I ever took.

8 posted on 06/09/2005 10:46:21 AM PDT by Texas Federalist (No matter what my work/play ratio is, I am never a dull boy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
tahiti wrote:

What is amazing to me is some many "Freepers" when confronted with Prof. Barnett's "presumption of liberty," recoil in fear of liberty. The most famous person of all who recoils in such fear is Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is an intellectual featherweight who is gradually learning [from his own problems] that prohibitionism is a political disease of both left & right.
-- One that could bring down this Republic if it spreads.

9 posted on 06/09/2005 10:54:57 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
8 replies vs 155 views...

The magical 20 to 1 ratio is rapidly being approached. Apparently, the concept of prohibition as a social disease is not a big hit with those who exhibit its symptoms.
10 posted on 06/09/2005 12:02:38 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I; Ken H

Posted by Ken H to Drammach
On News/Activism 06/09/2005 12:37:12 PM CDT · 605 of 611

(My prior post:)The commerce clause, concerning regulating commerce "among the several states" was meant to encourage free trade, not prohibit commerce..

(KenH reply:) I'm sure James Madison would agree.

"Yet it is very certain that it [the power to regulate commerce among the several States] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government"

--James Madison


11 posted on 06/09/2005 12:45:20 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

Thanks for the comment.


12 posted on 06/09/2005 2:08:00 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Madison wrote two letters in which he explained the intent of the Commerce Clause. He also explained the difference between the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the power to regulate commerce among the the several States.

Due to its length, I excerpted from his explanation of the power to regulate trade with foreign countries. The entire document can be read here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

18 Sept. 1828 Writings 9:316--40

1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.

2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named. [end of excerpt]

Now on to the States:

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829 Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

13 posted on 06/09/2005 2:11:27 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
"...only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority.

The context of his statement is that the states should obey the orders of this "reasonable majority". The problem that existed at the time was that each state was setting its own trade policy, and that diminished the effectiveness of any trade policy. He wanted there to be a national policy, that all the states would be bound to go along with. He was not saying that it should require a unanimous vote of the states in order to adopt such a policy.

14 posted on 06/09/2005 2:30:30 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Read further.. Sure, he admits we must have overall fed control over commerce, but only with State acquiescence:

" --- How is this harmony to be obtained? only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority. -- -- or lastly let no regulation of trade adopted by Congress be in force untill it shall have been ratified by a certain proportion of the States. -- "

The context of his statement is that the states should obey the orders of this "reasonable majority".

Read further.. Its obvious he wants States to have a say in commerce 'regulation'. - And doesn't believe that the commerce clause allows Congress to issue prohibitory 'Acts'.

The problem that existed at the time was that each state was setting its own trade policy, and that diminished the effectiveness of any trade policy. He wanted there to be a national policy, that all the states would be bound to go along with. He was not saying that it should require a unanimous vote of the states in order to adopt such a policy.

Amendments require a three fourths majority.

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

15 posted on 06/09/2005 2:56:47 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Its obvious he wants States to have a say in commerce 'regulation'.

I haven't said otherwise. He just isn't saying that consent needs to be unanimous among the states.

And doesn't believe that the commerce clause allows Congress to issue prohibitory 'Acts'.

Where does he say this?

Amendments require a three fourths majority.

Actually under the Articles of Confederation (which was in effect at the time of the letter) unanimity was required to make an amendment, but once the amendment would have been approved, it would not have required unanimity to pass a regulation of commerce.

16 posted on 06/09/2005 4:51:25 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Read further.. Sure, he admits we must have overall fed control over commerce, but only with State acquiescence:

" --- How is this harmony to be obtained? only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority. -- -- or lastly let no regulation of trade adopted by Congress be in force untill it shall have been ratified by a certain proportion of the States. -- "

The context of his statement is that the states should obey the orders of this "reasonable majority".

Read further.. Its obvious he wants States to have a say in commerce 'regulation'. - And doesn't believe that [a] commerce clause [should] allow Congress to issue prohibitory 'Acts'.

Where does he say this?

It's the thrust of his general argument. You don't agree with that argument, so you're nitpicking the issue, as usual.

The problem that existed at the time was that each state was setting its own trade policy, and that diminished the effectiveness of any trade policy. He wanted there to be a national policy, that all the states would be bound to go along with. He was not saying that it should require a unanimous vote of the states in order to adopt such a policy.

Amendments require a three fourths majority.

Actually under the Articles of Confederation (which was in effect at the time of the letter) unanimity was required to make an amendment, but once the amendment would have been approved, it would not have required unanimity to pass a regulation of commerce.

While interesting, your comment is in effect just more nitpicking in order to avoid the real issue:

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

17 posted on 06/09/2005 5:26:35 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
It's the thrust of his general argument.

Not even close. The thrust of his argument was the need for more power, not less.

18 posted on 06/09/2005 5:30:08 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: inquest
inquest wrote:

The thrust of his argument was the need for more power, not less.

Your own post at #3 contradicts you:

--- we have this excerpt from a 1785 letter from James Madison to James Monroe:
Much indeed is it to be wished, as I conceive, that no regulations of trade, that is to say, no restriction or imposts whatever, were necessary. A perfect freedom is the System which would be my choice. But before such a system will be eligible perhaps for the U. S. they must be out of debt; before it will be attainable, all other nations must concur in it.
3 posted on 06/09/2005 10:07:25 AM PDT by inquest

19 posted on 06/09/2005 6:14:38 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

So Congress doesn't have the power to prohibit commerce with foreign nations?


20 posted on 06/09/2005 7:03:42 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
"The power to regulate does not generally include the power to prohibit."

Weasel words.

21 posted on 06/09/2005 7:10:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen wrote:

So Congress doesn't have the power to prohibit commerce with foreign nations?

Odd ideas you have bobby. -- Sure, Congress has the power to declare a commercial war, but not one against its own citizens rights.

22 posted on 06/09/2005 7:25:34 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Read Barnetts whole essay, paulsen.

Calling him a weasel makes you look like one.
23 posted on 06/09/2005 7:31:00 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Read on. He then goes on to say why his "wish" wouldn't fit the country's needs.
24 posted on 06/09/2005 7:48:56 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations gives Congress the power to prohibit -- but the power to regulate commerce among the several states does not give Congress the power to prohibit.

Uh-huh.

25 posted on 06/09/2005 7:58:31 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

Hooray for Randy Barnett! Gold veins in old mines re-tapped!


26 posted on 06/09/2005 8:01:31 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
inquest wrote:

Read on. He then goes on to say why his "wish" wouldn't fit the country's needs.

That's not the thrust of his general argument, however.
You don't agree with that argument, so you're nitpicking the issue, as usual, in order to avoid the real issue:

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

27 posted on 06/09/2005 8:01:35 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
The natural state of commerce is perfect freedom.

Consequently, any "regulation" of commerce implies some sort of restriction or prohibition. We "regulate" alcohol to prohibit its use by those under 21, for example.

28 posted on 06/09/2005 8:08:39 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen wrote:

So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations gives Congress the [wartime] power to prohibit -- but the power to regulate commerce among the several states does not give Congress the power to prohibit.
Uh-huh.

The 'bold' change is mine..

Your inability to understand Constitutional principles is well established paulsen.. --- Thanks for displaying it yet again.

29 posted on 06/09/2005 8:09:34 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen wrote:

--- any "regulation" of commerce implies some sort of restriction or prohibition. We "regulate" alcohol to prohibit its use by those under 21, for example.

Barnett's essay exhaustively defines the distinctions between regulations & prohibitions, paulsen.
Why don't you write us a blistering critique?

30 posted on 06/09/2005 8:20:44 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: agitator

You did the essay on driver and auto licenses, right?


31 posted on 06/09/2005 8:26:10 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
32 posted on 06/09/2005 8:32:30 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
"So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations gives Congress the [wartime] power to prohibit."

The 'bold' change is yours ... your mistake.

Look up Jefferson's 1807 Embargo against England and France. We weren't at war with them then.

And Jefferson's Secretary of State at the time was the man who wrote the Constitution. You think he would have said somehing about that, huh?

33 posted on 06/09/2005 8:35:52 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
That's not the thrust of his general argument, however.

It's exactly his argument.

34 posted on 06/09/2005 8:46:39 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; inquest

We aren't at war with Cuba either. Yet we have an arguably legal embargo.

-- As usual, like inquest, you want to nitpick over details while you ignore the Constitutional issues.

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?




35 posted on 06/09/2005 8:53:41 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Don't ping me to replies to other people. If you disagree with something I said, you're free to state your grounds for doing so in a response to my post. Otherwise, you're just playing stupid games out of frustration, and it's frankly very childish.
36 posted on 06/09/2005 8:56:44 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Your last post to me at #34 was a childish 'neener -neener' nonresponse.
And I stated my reason for pinging both you & paulsen to the same post. You're acting like twins in your nitpicking attempted diversions.
37 posted on 06/09/2005 9:14:47 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Your last post to me at #34 was a childish 'neener -neener' nonresponse.

You wouldn't be the type to hold yourself to a lower standard than everyone else you deal with, would you? My post was no more "childish" than the unsupported statement of yours that I was responding to.

If you have anything further to say on the matter (like backing your statement up), then feel free to let me know.

And I stated my reason for pinging both you & paulsen to the same post.

I couldn't care less what your "reason" was. Don't ping me to replies to other people. It's not that difficult a concept.

38 posted on 06/09/2005 9:26:54 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Look, if you can't stand the heat of posting, - and replies, - get out of the kitchen. Your 'no ping' demand is childish.


39 posted on 06/09/2005 9:32:15 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

Perhaps you and some other constitution experts might find this interesting. A theory of state vs federal powers and overall government power (articles of Confederation vs. Constitution etc..). Comparisons are also made to the present day EU constitution and a brief theory on the Bill of Rights.

http://www.neoperspectives.com/europeanconstitution.htm


40 posted on 06/10/2005 4:32:05 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
"We aren't at war with Cuba either. Yet we have an arguably legal embargo."

We have a legal embargo. We're not at war. You are in error to say that we must be at war in order to ban commerce with foreign nations.

41 posted on 06/10/2005 6:03:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We aren't at war with Cuba either. Yet we have an arguably legal embargo.

-- As usual, you want to nitpick over details while you ignore the Constitutional issues.

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

We have a(n) [arguably] legal embargo. We're not at war.

Exactly what I wrote just above.

You are in error to say that we must be at war in order to ban commerce with foreign nations.

You really are amusing paulsen, as you dance around nitpicking these issues. -- Admit it, you love all prohibitions. Even those on guns.

42 posted on 06/10/2005 6:55:08 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
"nitpicking these issues"

Nitpicking? It's the subject of the article, doofus.

43 posted on 06/10/2005 7:14:19 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen nitpicks:

It's [banning commerce with foreign nations] the subject of the article, doofus

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit is the subject, not your doofy diversions.

44 posted on 06/10/2005 7:26:07 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator
Look, if you can't stand the heat of posting, - and replies, - get out of the kitchen.

Odd advice, coming from someone who has no business being in the "kitchen" in the first place.

Mr. Robinson, Mr. Moderator, I'd like to request that you look over the posting history of this "P_A_I" clown. You'll find that his posting style has a very familiar ring to it. Yup, he's back, and he's back to the same juvenile antics that led to his banning before, and it's really starting to get boring again.

45 posted on 06/10/2005 7:36:23 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bvw

yep

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm


46 posted on 06/10/2005 7:36:38 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Good grief, now you've really proved how childish you've become.

Whatta man.
47 posted on 06/10/2005 7:47:01 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tahiti

Read this if you're interested in the subject of licensing. I'm not holding my breath, 1 out of 1000 has the attention span required.

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

I'm too busy to argue with self-appointed experts talking through their hats.


48 posted on 06/10/2005 7:50:29 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

See this link, you might find it interesting.

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

Then again, maybe not :)


49 posted on 06/10/2005 7:51:50 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: agitator

I read it all years ago agitator. Well reasoned good stuff.
We agree on Constitutional principles, fer sure.

Thanks & regards. - See you next time.


50 posted on 06/10/2005 8:00:10 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson