The Interstate Commerce Clause.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Oct 24, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Interstate commerce clause is going to have to be correctly re-interpreted by the supreme court one day because the way it is being interpreted is giving congress incredible power to do everything. The current interpretation gives congress the power to "regulate" or control businesses but the original and correct interpretation was that it gave congress the power to create a uniform trade policy throughout the United States so that different businesses will have a single interstate commericial law and not deal with fifty seperate commerce rules that hamper trade between states and foreign governments. It basically hands states the power that it has to create tariffs, trade laws, and trade treaties to the federal government because in the original articles of confederation each state created their own seperate commerce policy that made trade impossible.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Good luck with that. Recent Supreme Court rulings basically allow the Commerce Clause to mean whatever the gov't wants it to mean. It would take legislation, maybe even an amendment, to change that.
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

    I wish they'd stop. :cuckoo:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  4. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    I think the original meaning of the clause would suffice, which was "to make regular." Meaning the federal government had the authority to enforce free trade amongst the states, and that was all.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    If people are willing to argue which party is better than the other, what can you expect ?
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

    Actually Justice Thomas brought this up in the last case the court considered on the matter. It involved someone growing marijuana in CA(?). He sold it in CA. The claim was that since there was no interstate commerce, the feds had nothing to do with it.
    Thomas pointed out, in the minority opinion, that if the majority prevailed then effectively the clause would mean whatever the gov't wanted it to mean, there would be no restrictions at all.
    I think no restrictions at all on what government can do is a very dangerous thing.
     
  7. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,479
    Thanks Received:
    12,358
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,673
    That is why we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court with original and appellate jurisdiction on all matters constitutional (Article III). If the people of the U.S. don't like it, they can amend the Constitution. Until that time, we have what the SC opines now. On matters of business and trade, the states must bow before the national law.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    But they don't even have a little knowledge.

    Insofar as government restriction is concerned, I think it depends on what you're restricting. I actually don't think the feds should interfere with medical marijuana laws in the states for exactly the reason you stated. (Though I admit I'm hard pressed to agree with Thomas... but that's a discussion for another thread).

    I hate to say this though... most things mean what the Court says they do. That's the nature of a common law system.
     
  9. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,479
    Thanks Received:
    12,358
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,673
    Thank heavens the far rightwing can only propose, while indeed the Supreme Court does dispose.
     
  10. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Actually I meant you.
    Yes, Supreme Court interpretations are binding. But that doesn't mean the people are powerless.
    And the court made exactly that argument in Kelo: that people could have their legislatures pass laws preventing private takings.
     

Share This Page