Is there anything you can't do under the Commerce Clause?

[Immanuel]

You can't make Congress stop wasting tax dollars.

Immie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't make Congress stop wasting tax dollars.

Immie

I think we're getting close to hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del twice and rebooting the whole Gubbamint

 

[manifold]

Is there anything you can't do under the Commerce Clause?

There is a lot YOU can't do.

But in many ways it sure is a nice we can do whatever we want clause for the US Government, the rare SCOTUS reversal not withstanding.

But to make this a partisan matter betrays an abject ignorance, willful or otherwise.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think we're getting close to hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del twice and rebooting the whole Gubbamint

I think we did that already.

Thank God.

 

[uscitizen]

Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"

We have ourselves a Torry traitor!

Frank......Can I interest you in a tar and feather suit?

cons sided with the Btrits during the revoloutionary war as well.
they were the torries.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Libs were blowing the Brits in exchange for free Health Care, and these are Librul men we're talking about. Can't even say what the Librul wimmen were doing back then

 

[Yurt]

Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"

We have ourselves a Torry traitor!

Frank......Can I interest you in a tar and feather suit?

cons sided with the Btrits during the revoloutionary war as well.
they were the torries.

this statement shows incredible ignorance....

there were plenty of conservative patriots, conservatives were on both sides of the issue, some wanted to remain loyal, others did not

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The case under FDR where they found a man violated the "Commence Clause" for refusing to sell wheat HELD FOR HIS OWN USE back to the Gubbamint was the first of many bad SCOTUS rulings on point

Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.

 

[ihopehefails]

The case under FDR where they found a man violated the "Commence Clause" for refusing to sell wheat HELD FOR HIS OWN USE back to the Gubbamint was the first of many bad SCOTUS rulings on point

Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.

I agree. Everytime the courts rule in favor of expanding govt power you are defeating the purpose of the constitution itself. I think if the courts don't know what to do they should rule in favor of ruling of limiting government and not expanding it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The case under FDR where they found a man violated the "Commence Clause" for refusing to sell wheat HELD FOR HIS OWN USE back to the Gubbamint was the first of many bad SCOTUS rulings on point

Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.

I agree. Everytime the courts rule in favor of expanding govt power you are defeating the purpose of the constitution itself. I think if the courts don't know what to do they should rule in favor of ruling of limiting government and not expanding it.

I think allowing the government to determine the extent of the government's power in the first place is foolish.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I tend to think if the founders intended for these two clauses to mean "give the people whatever they want, and congress the power to DO whatever they want, with no regard for the tax or moral ramifications" they would have simply worded it more concisely and left out the apparent crypticness.

Plus, if these is what the founders meant then what is even the need for a constitution to begin with ?

One of the goals of the constitution was the limiting/defining of Federal power.

 

[ihopehefails]

Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.

I agree. Everytime the courts rule in favor of expanding govt power you are defeating the purpose of the constitution itself. I think if the courts don't know what to do they should rule in favor of ruling of limiting government and not expanding it.

I think allowing the government to determine the extent of the government's power in the first place is foolish.

Exactly.

 

[The T]

Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"

We have ourselves a Torry traitor!

Frank......Can I interest you in a tar and feather suit?

cons sided with the Btrits during the revoloutionary war as well.
they were the torries.

What a fuckin' ignorant statement. You have no Earthly idea of what you're writing, do you?

The Founders *ARE* The original American Conservative Movement that told a King...an Empire to fuck OFF...and invested their very fortunes to see to it...

 

[Navy1960]

All this debate on "General Welfare" and Commerce gives the Govt. the power to do whatever it chooses. Would you like to know what the father of the constitution had to say about that?

"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

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. Letter from James Madison to Joseph Cabell 1829

These mandates are EXACTLY what Madison was warning about and are EXACTLY what he and many many others including several courts have said is NOT a power that is granted to the Federal Govt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All this debate on "General Welfare" and Commerce gives the Govt. the power to do whatever it chooses. Would you like to know what the father of the constitution had to say about that?

"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

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. Letter from James Madison to Joseph Cabell 1829

These mandates are EXACTLY what Madison was warning about and are EXACTLY what he and many many others including several courts have said is NOT a power that is granted to the Federal Govt.

Why must facts always be so fucking mean to Libruls?

 

[manifold]

So it was the libruls that exploited the commerce clause to start banning drugs and to establish the DEA huh?

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

 

[DiamondDave]

All this debate on "General Welfare" and Commerce gives the Govt. the power to do whatever it chooses. Would you like to know what the father of the constitution had to say about that?

"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

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. Letter from James Madison to Joseph Cabell 1829

These mandates are EXACTLY what Madison was warning about and are EXACTLY what he and many many others including several courts have said is NOT a power that is granted to the Federal Govt.

Thanks, Navy

That deserves more rep than I can give....

As I stated in my rep.. keep this at hand.. as these far left wingers will continue to try and use the same shit over and over and over again....

 

[Navy1960]

More from what James Madison had to say,

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government". James Madison

"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted." James Madison

So with the passage of this new bill, our rights to person, and property are no longer our own, and it can be assumed from that the Govt. instituted to protect that has moved away from that concept.

 

[amrchaos]

Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"

That is why the Constitution is also part propaganda......

 

[amrchaos]

I agree. Unfortunately the Clowns iin Congress are shooting for the carte blanche.

Excuse me, you're use of French is un-American, I suppose someone like you still calls American fires French fries. Didn't you get the message from your leader? No card carrying jingo would ever speak/write in French, do you want to be kicked out of the party? Glen Beck will boot you, for sure!

I am part French. Canadian French, but French none the less. Sorry.

I bet your Conservative buddies get a kick out of that one!!

"My Friend here is French Canadian but he is not a liberal!! Wink wink-nudge nudge!!"