The bastardization of the Commerce Clause

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Jun 12, 2010
101,188
24,235
2,220
Kannapolis, N.C.
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
 
TThe bastardization of the Commerce Clause
..........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

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

.
 
TThe bastardization of the Commerce Clause
..........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

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

.

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.
 
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??
 
TThe bastardization of the Commerce Clause
..........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

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

.

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.

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.
 
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
 
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??

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.
 
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??

YOu've got to wonder if they knew that.
 
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.
 
The bastardization of the Commerce Clause

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).

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

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 naïve.

So fuck obama and his healthcare Jefferson just trumped him.

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

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

By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the
minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for
two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress
had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In
addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its
larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health
insurance.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

The ACA, therefore, functions well within the context of the Court’s understanding of constitutionally authorized Congressional activity per the Commerce Clause.
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.

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:
The ACA, therefore, functions well within the context of the Court’s understanding of constitutionally authorized Congressional activity per the Commerce Clause.
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.

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.

Some gems of judicial review:

Dred Scott v. Sanford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Koramatsu v. United States

Let's not hold judicial review up as some sort of unassailable process. You seem to want the OP to pick between accepting every conclusion of case law since 1776 or abandon the Supreme Court altogether. That seems like a flase dichotomy. Why don't we just correct Commerce Clause jurisprudence, dump the aggregate effects test, retain an exception for Title II of the Civil Rights Act (or better, justify Title II on an expanded understanding of the 13th Amendment), and the Supreme Court can instruct Obama to alter the current health care law for a Federalist friendly framework? That way Texas can continue to have health care done the way it wants, but other more blue states can follow Massachusetts and Vermont with Federal subsidies.
 
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??

Because, up until the Civil War, no one made an issue of states printing their own currency.
 
The Executive doesn’t interpret the Constitution, the courts do.

Where did you get the idea that the executive does not interpret the Constitution?

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.

Is the Supreme Court always right? If so, how do you explain that Dred Scott was reversed by amending the Constitution, and that Plessy was overturned by the court itself?
 
The ACA, therefore, functions well within the context of the Court’s understanding of constitutionally authorized Congressional activity per the Commerce Clause.
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.
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.

Some gems of judicial review:

Dred Scott v. Sanford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Koramatsu v. United States

Let's not hold judicial review up as some sort of unassailable process. You seem to want the OP to pick between accepting every conclusion of case law since 1776 or abandon the Supreme Court altogether. That seems like a flase dichotomy. Why don't we just correct Commerce Clause jurisprudence, dump the aggregate effects test, retain an exception for Title II of the Civil Rights Act (or better, justify Title II on an expanded understanding of the 13th Amendment), and the Supreme Court can instruct Obama to alter the current health care law for a Federalist friendly framework? That way Texas can continue to have health care done the way it wants, but other more blue states can follow Massachusetts and Vermont with Federal subsidies.

I have challenged him numerous times about that issue and he has never responded. Possibly because it would require him to admit that SCOTUS can be wrong. He was not even aware that the reason Jim Crow laws existed in the first place was that the court essentially gutted the 14th Amendment and ruled that it did not apply to the states and that Congress did not have the power to right broad civil rights legislation. They still have not completely reversed Plessy because some of the Bill of Rights has not been incorporated against the sates.
 
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

I'm reading the words of Article I Section 8 Clause 3 and clearly it grants Congress more power than that merely required to "ensure that the states would maintain a fair trade system between each other". So either the Founders weren't too good about expressing their intent - OR YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
 
The bastardization of the Commerce Clause has been a long running issue for the Republic.

Thomas Jefferson , suggested that judges interpret the Constitution as if they were "mere machines". Unfortunately, however, the Justices ignore the Constitution in favor of their own proclivities .

.
 
Last edited:
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

I'm reading the words of Article I Section 8 Clause 3 and clearly it grants Congress more power than that merely required to "ensure that the states would maintain a fair trade system between each other". So either the Founders weren't too good about expressing their intent - OR YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

The bastardization of the Commerce Clause has been a long running issue for the Republic.

Thomas Jefferson , suggested that judges interpret the Constitution as if they were "mere macines". Unfortunately, however, the Justices ignore the Constitution in favor of their own proclivities .

.

Perhaps 'they' figured 'we' would have become productively progressive to the point that 'we' would not continue to need our hands held to gain our goals. 'We' do have goals, *I* would hope those goals are for the best interests of the people who currently dwell within the land and for the current living conditions of such.

We should NOT have to, as a nation, continually use the rebuttal 'but daddy...' It seems that has become one of our biggest obstacles instead of strengths. Perhaps what we need is to get on with growing and know that 'our daddy' has always been and will continue to always be there to support and protect us. It isn't about falling backward, it is about going forward, even if in our ways we appear to 'go back' a bit, that could only be for a time to regain a better balance and control of that which should be controlled. :eusa_whistle:
 
Perhaps 'they' figured 'we' would have become productively progressive to the point that 'we' would not continue to need our hands held to gain our goals. 'We' do have goals, *I* would hope those goals are for the best interests of the people who currently dwell within the land and for the current living conditions of such.

We should NOT have to, as a nation, continually use the rebuttal 'but daddy...' It seems that has become one of our biggest obstacles instead of strengths. Perhaps what we need is to get on with growing and know that 'our daddy' has always been and will continue to always be there to support and protect us. It isn't about falling backward, it is about going forward, even if in our ways we appear to 'go back' a bit, that could only be for a time to regain a better balance and control of that which should be controlled. :eusa_whistle:

Or, just perhaps, they thought we were already adults. When I say "But daddy" it is because daddy thinks I need him to hold my hand, not because I think the government should protect me.

The only thing we, as a nation, need to control is the government.
 
Perhaps 'they' figured 'we' would have become productively progressive to the point that 'we' would not continue to need our hands held to gain our goals. 'We' do have goals, *I* would hope those goals are for the best interests of the people who currently dwell within the land and for the current living conditions of such.

We should NOT have to, as a nation, continually use the rebuttal 'but daddy...' It seems that has become one of our biggest obstacles instead of strengths. Perhaps what we need is to get on with growing and know that 'our daddy' has always been and will continue to always be there to support and protect us. It isn't about falling backward, it is about going forward, even if in our ways we appear to 'go back' a bit, that could only be for a time to regain a better balance and control of that which should be controlled. :eusa_whistle:

Or, just perhaps, they thought we were already adults. When I say "But daddy" it is because daddy thinks I need him to hold my hand, not because I think the government should protect me.

The only thing we, as a nation, need to control is the government.

:evil: PERHAPS the 'we' already do, the 'we' just don't UNDERSTAND it. OPEN a few worthy eyes for GODS sake. :eusa_angel:
 
contumacious said:
quote: Originally posted by kuros
the bastardization of the commerce clause has been a long running issue for the republic.
Thomas jefferson , suggested that judges interpret the constitution as if they were "mere machines". Unfortunately, however, the justices ignore the constitution in favor of their own proclivities .

I don't know about machines, but a good faith standard would be nice. The Constitution has really insulated the Supremes from political forces, although the Supreme Court is broadly accountable to the nation lest we stop listening to them. But yet they continue to judge based on their own biases. The people on the bench are really small people, even though they are very few. I mean to say: nine people is apparently few enough to create a partisan environment.

Quantum Windbag said:
the only thing we, as a nation, need to control is the government.

I've never heard a convincing argument from the Left against Federalism. It usually devolves to such tripe as "that sounds so 19th Century" or "we need to guard against racism." But those on the Left who do understand the Constitution know we can have a meaningful Commerce Clause and protect against State encroachments on civil rights through Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment and a broad interpretation of the 13th (vestiges of slavery theory) as to private action under Title II (or make a limited exception to the Commerce Clause, whatever).

1melissa3's post is typical in that Leftist-nationalist vein.
i
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top