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

Skip to comments.

Montana’s States’ Rights Showdown
Newsweek ^ | 23 April, 2010 | Daniel Stone and Stuart Taylor Jr.

Posted on 04/24/2010 7:45:15 AM PDT by marktwain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
This argument, that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate everything, renders the interstate commerce clause meaningless. If interstate commerce means all commerce, then the writers of the Constitution would have said "commerce", not "interstate commerce".

However, this nullification of the interstate commerce clause is one of the main pillars of the "progressive" program.

1 posted on 04/24/2010 7:45:16 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Could” jump state lines??? It is only Interstate Commerce “When” it jumps state lines.


2 posted on 04/24/2010 7:48:21 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The original purpose of the interstate commerce clause was not to give the federal government control over all interstate commerce or actions which could relate to interstate commerce, but to prevent states from restricting and taxing it like they had been doing under the Articles of Confederation.

If I were given the power to edit the Constitution, it is one of the first few things I would change to explicitly return it to its original purpose.

3 posted on 04/24/2010 7:52:07 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Obamacare: The 2010 version of the Intolerable Acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Congress can regulate anything that could jump state lines.

Funny, I don't see that in the constitution. But it doesn't really matter: too many did too little for way too long and as a result we now live in a growing tyranny.

Thanks for nothing, folks.

America -- a great idea, didn't last.

4 posted on 04/24/2010 7:54:13 AM PDT by Clint Williams (America -- a great idea, didn't last. R.I.P. America 3/21/2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
Yes, "could." You are guilty of a crime that may happen.

Now, that's what I call "progress." /sarc

5 posted on 04/24/2010 7:54:32 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
“Could” jump state lines??? It is only Interstate Commerce “When” it jumps state lines.

That goes back to (at least) the awful 1942 Wickard v Filburn Supreme Court decision which stated that the grain a farmer grows for his own livestock could be limited by the federal government because it could affect interstate commerce since grain was used in interstate commerce.

6 posted on 04/24/2010 7:57:37 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Obamacare: The 2010 version of the Intolerable Acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

That is awful. Soon we will pay tax penalties because we might not pay on time next year with that logic.


7 posted on 04/24/2010 7:57:43 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Communists America is here and well.
8 posted on 04/24/2010 7:59:46 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams
Funny, I don't see that in the constitution.

It's there. It's after the paragraph giving the gov't authority to legalize sodomy and abortion.

9 posted on 04/24/2010 8:01:58 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Obamunism: You have two cows. The regime redistributes them and shoots you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; bamahead; ForGod'sSake

Ping!


10 posted on 04/24/2010 8:06:38 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If interstate commerce means all commerce, then the writers of the Constitution would have said "commerce", not "interstate commerce".

Correct. The clause was meant to abolish interstate tariffs, nothing more.

This will make for an interesting test.

11 posted on 04/24/2010 8:07:38 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Most make the same claim: that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government power to regulate commerce between states but doesn't permit interference in purely local affairs.

They'd still be wrong.

Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875
Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 455

Madison himself said the consent of the States was required and that the power to regulate commerce was an external power, NOT an internal one.

Congress can direct goods coming from overseas to the various ports of the States so the States with ports get a relatively equal share of 'income' taxes.

That's ALL the Constituion allows for.

12 posted on 04/24/2010 8:30:01 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am not a administrative, corporate, collective, legal, political or public entity or ~person~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
One legal scholar is citing Scalia's opinion in Raich in defending Obamacare from a constitutional challenge. Charles Fried, Solicitor General 1985-1989 and Harvard Law professor was on Greta Van Susteren, 04/14/2010:

______________________________________

FRIED:The statute which I have front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce.

The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce.

Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.

-snip-

FRIED: I daresay that, because I looked at that 2005 lawsuit about the pot in California. If somebody growing pot in their basement is interstate commerce and Scalia said so, I don't know where you are going to get five votes the other way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591103,00.html

13 posted on 04/24/2010 8:31:43 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

i “could” kill someone, so put me in jail now.....just in case


14 posted on 04/24/2010 8:38:34 AM PDT by is_is (VP Dad of Sgt. G - My Hero - "Sleep Well America......Your Marines have your Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
That goes back to (at least) the awful 1942

Figures...FDR.

15 posted on 04/24/2010 8:42:35 AM PDT by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; All
Later this year, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which proclaims that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in state are not subject to federal rules such as background checks, is slated to become the first of these Obama-era commerce challenges tested in court. But the case...[is] doomed to fail, as will similar rebukes.

That's because...Congress can regulate anything that could jump state lines.

I don't think that was the intention of the Founding Fathers. I think the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution for a damn good reason.

NewsWEAK is losing readers because they are irrelevant, and this article is another evidence of their lame, parochial, closed minded thinking.

16 posted on 04/24/2010 8:46:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

I agree!
2/3 of the States should call a Constitution Convention and explicitly define the Commerce Clause in an amendment. With 3/4 States ratification, we can reduce the power from DC to an acceptable level.


17 posted on 04/24/2010 8:48:41 AM PDT by Stop the Feds with Article 5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

That is an interesting point, though I’d like to see the entirety of the opinion.

Scalia is a good man, I cannot imagine he would approve of a socialized health plan. Hmm.


18 posted on 04/24/2010 8:50:01 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well, they are launching the propaganda.

Just wait till the filibuster is removed. There will be a gun ban bill hitting Bambi’s desk within a week.


19 posted on 04/24/2010 9:01:24 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stop the Feds with Article 5
2/3 of the States should call a Constitution Convention and explicitly define the Commerce Clause in an amendment. With 3/4 States ratification, we can reduce the power from DC to an acceptable level.

Agree. Madison stated very clearly the original understanding of the power to regulate commerce among the several states:

...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...

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell, 13 Feb. 1829

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html

20 posted on 04/24/2010 9:03:34 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 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