None. There is no delegated power given the federal to regulate commerce within a State (commerce only within a State that is not interstate commerce but only affects interstate commerce is still not interstate commerce) agriculture or manufacturing.
Most of what the federal does domestically represents an arrogation of the Constitution as the Law.
And the vast majority of both parties really don’t care.
Most of what the federal does domestically represents an arrogation of the Constitution as the Law.
********************
The feral government.
Excellent! Correct answer.
Good work Rurudyne!
Regardless what FDRs activist justices wanted everybody to think about Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the corrupt feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Regarding agriculture, state sovereignty-respecting justices had likewise clarified that the states have never constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate agricultural production.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” - United States v. Butler, 1936.
On the other hand, FDRs thug justices had addressed manufacturing when they essentially treated 10th Amendment-protected state powers as a wives tale when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in corrupt Congresss favor imo.
”In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was ”necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as ”production,” ”manufacturing,” [emphases added] and ”mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.” - Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The supreme court ruled otherwise sometime in the 1930s (or 40s) - They ruled against a farmer that sold all his crop locally, never crossing state line.
This is the camel nose that began a lot of mischief in our nation.