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

[CrusaderFrank]

Since the all-encompassing "Commerce Clause" apparently gives Dems the power to take over health care, can it be used to nationalize all industries and establish a Fascist dictatorship if done under the guise of regulating interstate commerce?

 

[The Rabbi]

Apparently establishing gun-free school zones at the federal level is a no-no.

 

[Claudette]

Apparently establishing gun-free school zones at the federal level is a no-no.

Its such a giant grey area that I think the party in power thinks they can do whatever they want and say its in the Constitution. Hence this healthcare clusterfuck. Who knows what else they will try to do???

 

[amrchaos]

How about "Helping Glen Beck gain some sanity?""

Well, does it make the list??

 

[Shogun]

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!

 

[Paulie]

I'm pretty sure this is where most regulation stems from.

When something is as vague as the commerce or general welfare clause, it would certainly seem to me that erring on the side of minimalism is better than just assuming it gives carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want.

 

[Claudette]

I'm pretty sure this is where most regulation stems from.

When something is as vague as the commerce or general welfare clause, it would certainly seem to me that erring on the side of minimalism is better than just assuming it gives carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want.

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Supreme Court has pretty much interpreted it that way.

 

[Paulie]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm pretty sure this is where most regulation stems from.

When something is as vague as the commerce or general welfare clause, it would certainly seem to me that erring on the side of minimalism is better than just assuming it gives carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want.

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!

 

[rightwinger]

The United States has established courts where you can bring your grievances about abuse of the Commerce Clause.

I wish you luck in trying to overturn healthcare, but the courts are there for you as a US citizen

 

[Navy1960]

Modern Debate Over the Commerce Clause:The Case of United States v. Lopez (1995) Excerpt From the Decision
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS joined. KENNEDY filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR joined. THOMAS filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS and SOUTER filed dissenting opinions. BREYER filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG joined.




. . Under the theories that the Government presents in support of [the Act], it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

For instance, if Congress can, pursuant to its Commerce Clause power, regulate activities that adversely affect the learning environment, then, a fortiori, it also can regulate the educational process directly. Congress could determine that a school's curriculum has a "significant" effect on the extent of classroom learning. As a result, Congress could mandate a federal curriculum for local elementary and secondary schools because what is taught in local schools has a significant "effect on classroom learning" and that, in turn, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.


. . . [This] rationale lacks any real limits because, depending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial. Under the dissent's rationale, Congress could just as easily look at child rearing as "fall[ing] on the commercial side of the line" because it provides a "valuable service - namely, to equip [children] with the skills they need to survive in life and, more specifically, in the workplace." . . . We do not doubt that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate numerous commercial activities that substantially affect interstate commerce and also affect the educational process. That authority, though broad, does not include the authority to regulate each and every aspect of local schools.

The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.


Modern Debate over the Commerce Clause: The Case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Landmark Supreme Court Cases

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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"

 

[rightwinger]

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?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

No thanks my little goosestepping friend

 

[ihopehefails]

That interpretation is incorrect. The commerce clause basically says that no state can put up any trade barriers because under the articles of confederation each state, federal govt, and indian tribe could place trade barriers up and the new constitution got rid of that with the commerce clause because to regulate meant to make normal or standardize (Its like old people buying fiber drinks for the purpose of making them "regular") and if I am wrong then where else in the constitution gives the federal government the power to eliminate trade barriers states and indian tribes can put up? If you can't find any then I am going to call my local state govt repreentative and ask him to place a tariff on all incoming goods in order to strengthen our state's industries.

 

[ihopehefails]

The United States has established courts where you can bring your grievances about abuse of the Commerce Clause.

I wish you luck in trying to overturn healthcare, but the courts are there for you as a US citizen

I'm glad you said that because the current court thinks that interpretation is wrong...

Goodbye communist health care.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[Claudette]

I'm pretty sure this is where most regulation stems from.

When something is as vague as the commerce or general welfare clause, it would certainly seem to me that erring on the side of minimalism is better than just assuming it gives carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want.

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The United States has established courts where you can bring your grievances about abuse of the Commerce Clause.

I wish you luck in trying to overturn healthcare, but the courts are there for you as a US citizen

I'm glad you said that because the current court thinks that interpretation is wrong...

Goodbye communist health care.

It's up to Sotomayor.

That fucking moron Souter would have said Congress does have the right. Thankfully he retired and made it physically to get a Judge that could lean any further Left unless we were to dig up Mao himself