The bastardization of the Commerce Clause

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bigrebnc1775, Jun 30, 2011.

  1. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to ensure that the states would maintain a fair trade system between each other and a centralized currency system

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes
    Commerce Clause legal definition of Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
    After the war with Britain the states were fighting amongst themselves and would charge what ever price they wish to for materials from Eroupe.


    Thomas Jefferson said of the Commerce Clause
    "To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes."
    Founders and 19th Century Quotes on the Commerce Clause | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
    So fuck obama and his healthcare Jefferson just trumped him.
    The same man who said

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure
     
  2. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    Incorrect.

    The Commerce clause was substituted by the Welfare/Warfare State Constitution of 1935.

    The New Enhanced Commerce Clause reads:

    Congress shall have the power to do whatever it wants , whenever it wants it . Congress shall not have to worry about the citizens . The Department Of Education is hereby authorized to make sure that when students graduate from high school they are dumb as sticks.

    John Maynard Keynes
    Founding Father

    .
     
  3. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    Whenever you think it happen it's still bastardization of the Commerce Clause meaning it's being used for other things away from it's original intent.
     
  4. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    The commerce clause was meant to ensure a "centralized currency system"? hmmm..then why did each state and many private institutions maintain their own currency up until the Civil War?

    I presume you realize that a national currency is a post-Civil war phenomena...right? right??
     
  5. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,281
    Thanks Received:
    3,998
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,904
    To me this is a symptom of the judical approach to adding to the consitution, instead of the proper way of adding to it, via amendments. People just have to remember that all the consitution is supposed to do is set a framework for government, and restrict the federal governments powers in certain areas.

    The current trend is to use clauses that, while maybe related to the original intent, are stretched past the point of reasonableness.

    The true way to adjust the consitution is via amendments, but another sad fact of our current society is that we have become lazy. we would rather have a lawyer get a judge to give us a ruling by fiat, instead of taking the effort to modify the document the way the founders intended.
     
  6. Kuros
    Offline

    Kuros BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Messages:
    550
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville
    Ratings:
    +64
    The bastardization of the Commerce Clause has been a long running issue for the Republic. In the 1920s, a rightist court struck down various national labor laws because they didn't believe that manufacturing centers put goods into the stream of commerce. As often happens in America, two wrongs make a clusterf*ck, and a pro-New Deal court went the other way with the Commerce Clause. In Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, the court held that grain that was grown on a farm and stayed on that farm (for consumption by domestic animals) could be regulated because of the aggregate impact it has on interstate commerce. The aggregate impact test, a pinnacle achievement in nationalist sophistry, continues today. We could blame the left-wing members of the court for continuing it (and well we should), but we see members like Scalia trot out Wickard v. Filburn when the Federal gov't wants to regulate something he doesn't like, such as marijuana. Thus, we get a united rape of reason in Gonzales v. Reich, where somehow the Federal gov't has authority to regulate marijuana . . . because sales of marijuana are interstate in aggregate effect.

    Again, if we use the aggregate effect test, the restriction that the Federal gov't be able to only regulate interstate commerce (and practically this should be a fact-dependent question and actually a very broad power in a modern, integrated society) becomes meaningless.

    Gonzales v. Raich

    Wickard v. Filburn
     
  7. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    Yes thats right the commerce clause was created to keep the states on a level playing field, not to force the citizens to buy something they do not want to buy.
     
  8. bodecea
    Online

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    88,978
    Thanks Received:
    10,365
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,630
    YOu've got to wonder if they knew that.
     
  9. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Well, the constitutionality of ObamaCare has been ruled in one Appeals court, and I suppose a few more Appeals rulings will come down for or against. But it'll end up in the SCOTUS, where it'll be decided. If you ask me, the Commerce Clause has been stretched far beyond the intent of the framers. I don't think social engineering was what they had in mind, things have gotten way out of conrol.
     
  10. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,932
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,868
    The Commerce Clause is ‘bastardized’ only if one rejects the doctrine of judicial review and the concept of the rule of law: the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means. Marbury v Madison (1803).

    During the Foundation Era there were two conflicting ‘original intents,’ Federalist and Anti-Federalist. The Supreme Court elected to follow the former, but its intent is as original as the other. The error many make is to see the Framers as a single, monolithic entity of a single mind. In fact, the Framers changed their positions during the course of their lives, and were influence my a myriad of diverse sources – to declare that there was a ‘single intent’ with regard to any aspect of the Constitution is inaccurate and na├»ve.

    The Executive doesn’t interpret the Constitution, the courts do.

    In the Thomas Moore ruling this week, the court held that:

    The ACA, therefore, functions well within the context of the Court’s understanding of constitutionally authorized Congressional activity per the Commerce Clause.
    And you base this opinion on what fact of law.

    Or is it also your opinion that the entirety of case law concerning this matter is wrong, rejecting the doctrine of judicial review altogether. And if that’s the case, what process do you recommend to replace it – a Constitution with thousands of amendments.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2011

Share This Page