[Ken H]

No, I DIDN'T ask for it. In fact, I'm fighting it.

So in your opinion, which of the two got it right on the Commerce Clause... Scalia or Thomas?

______________________________________________________

Scalia: ...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. --J. Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v Raich

_____________________________________________________

Thomas: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

--J. Thomas, dissenting in Gonzales v Raich

[Wolfie]

I don’t know how anyone can read Scalia’s comments, which is now the Law of the Land, and not know that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is Constitutional.

[Yosemitest]

Constitution 101: The Reason For The Commerce Clause
Andrew Madsen
December 21, 2010



Turn with me in your pocket Constitution to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Here you will find a sentence which many big government advocates have perverted to serve the slow creep of centralized power. This was never meant to be.

The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the limited power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

Now, the Progressives have contorted the meaning of this power to support everything from National Healthcare (Obamacare), to regulation of monopolies, price-fixing, wage regulation, and many other unconstitutional federal activities. Why are these things unconstitutional? Well, because the Commerce Clause was written for one defined reason.

The only purpose was to give the Federal Government the adequate power to ensure that commerce between the States was not interrupted by tariffs, quotas, or other taxes.  Therefore, this means that New York can’t place a tax on goods that comes from Massachusetts or New Jersey. To regulate means that the Federal Government has the power to prevent State Government’s from engaging in trade wars and preventing free trade.  The root meaning of regulate, is to keep regular, not to control, mandate, or even become involved in the process.

The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the job to protect free trade by preventing State Government’s from pandering to special interests who would benefit from interstate protectionism. How interesting that unions, businesses, and others now use the Commerce Clause for the purpose of mandating that resources be diverted to their businesses.

No place in the Constitution is there power given to the Federal Government that would support the idea that the Founder’s intended for such massive expansion and ambiguity. And that’s the truth about the Commerce Clause.

The Constitution is defined and simple. Anyone can understand it, and that’s what the Founder’s wanted.

Remember, only 20 powers are given to the Federal Government (Article 1 Section 8). Take a minute and think about all the things that government now does, make a list, then read the Constitution and see if there is explicit power given for those programs and actions. Mark the ones where there is no Constitutional support. ...