Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
I think you missed this part: That pretty much proves Congress was never given the consent in regards to intrastate regulation. FAA regulations have more to do with safty then with another state imposing duties on another states imports. If it is a matter of safty than every state can impose universal safty regulations within its limits like any other country. Don't need a lawless congress for that.
11 posted on 08/22/2006 12:34:08 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: AZRepublican

Right, but I think you miss is what Madison means by "individual liberty," and what he always referred to "individual liberty" under republicanism is the right to self-governement, the right to make ones own laws and social compact. To Madison, the greatest constitutional liberty for individuals was not found in the Bill of Rights, but in the Tenth Amendment (first 8 amendments is the bill of rights and not first 10).


12 posted on 08/22/2006 12:40:05 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: AZRepublican
"I think you missed this part: Congress are prevented from taxing exports, or giving preference to the ports of one State over another, or obliging vessels bound from one State to clear, enter, or pay duties in another"

Nope. Read every word.

Perhaps you can tell me which word in there is applicable to my example and prevents Congress from passing laws to the extent necessary to regulate interstate commerce.

"If it is a matter of safty than every state can impose universal safty regulations within its limits like any other country."

It is a matter of safety, but it is also a matter of encouraging and facilitating interstate commerce. As for each state imposing safety regulations, they cannot divest Congress of its authority under the commerce clause.

"To impose on (Congress- rp) the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other governments, which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the constitution."
-- Chief Justice (and Founding Father) John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

13 posted on 08/22/2006 1:10:55 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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