The Commerce Clause and the All Powerful Congress

[Skull Pilot]

This video is an excellent discourse on the commerce clause.

What say you?

[youtube]6SDf5_Thqsk&feature[/youtube]

 

[William Joyce]

I am thrilled that the individual insurance mandate is currently being exposed in the federal courts for the unconstitutional piece of shit that it is.

There's a lot more where that came from.

The "commerce clause" has been Congress' blank check for power for years, but every once in while (U.S. v. Lopez) they get a smack-down from the Supreme Court.

The problem is that the American people -- not just Congress -- does not understand the foundational idea of the federal government: THAT ITS POWERS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Where, exactly, does Congress have the power to create the Dept. of Education? Laws like "No Child Left Behind"? About 80 percent of the spending they do?

They don't.

 

[The Infidel]

They are out of control..... this is becoming more like a soft dictatorship by the day.

This has got to stop or we are finished as a soveriegn power.

 

[Avorysuds]

See guys, it was explained to easily... Someone very soon will disagree with what seems blatantly obvious even to a child.

 

[Charles_Main]

How anyone can make the leap from "regulate interstate commerce" to force you to buy something from a private company is Beyond me.

As I have stated elsewhere if the Fed wins this argument, then the Fed has become an all powerful force. Who can force you to buy, or do, just about anything, in the name of Regulating interstate commerce.

Whats next, Buy a Chevy Volt or pay a fine? Put Solar panels on your house or be fined?

It would never end. It is far to open ended.

This nation was built on the idea of limiting the Feds power. If the Health care mandate is legal then that Limitation is all but gone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's funny how everyone gets up in arms about the government messing with the Bill of Rights when the real threat to our liberty is the current interpretation of the commerce clause.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's funny how everyone gets up in arms about the government messing with the Bill of Rights when the real threat to our liberty is the current interpretation of the commerce clause.

Exactly, I submit that Loose interpretation of the Constitution by Activists has become the single biggest threat to our Freedom we have ever faced.

 

[William Joyce]

It's funny how everyone gets up in arms about the government messing with the Bill of Rights when the real threat to our liberty is the current interpretation of the commerce clause.

Yes -- there are 19 thousand decisions by the Supreme Court about the 4th Amendment, and all of about 12 on limiting the commerce clause. Priorities, anyone?

 

[Charles_Main]

It's funny how everyone gets up in arms about the government messing with the Bill of Rights when the real threat to our liberty is the current interpretation of the commerce clause.

Yes -- there are 19 thousand decisions by the Supreme Court about the 4th Amendment, and all of about 12 on limiting the commerce clause. Priorities, anyone?

and yet they still claim Precedent. lol

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is that people refuse to read and understand the constitution. I just got done reading swallow try and explain why the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual one and have heard NUMEROUS times about how Obama understands the constitution because he was a constitutional scholar or some other such drivel so Obama care can't be unconstitutional. What everyone seems to fail to understand is that the constitution is not that complicated. you do not need to be a scholar to understand what the forefathers were attempting to create or to understand the simple language that it is written in. Application within the broader laws built on the constitution and the nuances of the many situations it can apply to may need far more education but as far as understanding the basics, it is not that difficult. Most of the constitution is written in pretty simple language. It is sad that people in this country need to be told what the constitution says and stands for by others instead of taking the personal responsibility in understanding it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whats next, Buy a Chevy Volt or pay a fine? Put Solar panels on your house or be fined?

You're not giving The Obama and His toadies enough credit -- this is exactly what they hope to be able to do, and certainly will try to do so, should His HCI mandate hold up.

 

[CoolBreeze]

The reason some people will not take the time to read and understand the Constitution is because they feel the the ones (politicians) that they agree with, would not tell them something that was not true. However, it is not hard to obtain a copy of the Constitution. All one has to do is to go to the Heritage Foundation @heritage.org and request a copy. The Foundation will send a copy to the requestor for free.

 

[Jackson]

The reason some people will not take the time to read and understand the Constitution is because they feel the the ones (politicians) that they agree with, would not tell them something that was not true. However, it is not hard to obtain a copy of the Constitution. All one has to do is to go to the Heritage Foundation @heritage.org and request a copy. The Foundation will send a copy to the requestor for free.

Every highschool curriculum should have a semester study of our constitution. Then our Senators may know the three branches of government!

 

[Sallow]

How anyone can make the leap from "regulate interstate commerce" to force you to buy something from a private company is Beyond me.

As I have stated elsewhere if the Fed wins this argument, then the Fed has become an all powerful force. Who can force you to buy, or do, just about anything, in the name of Regulating interstate commerce.

Whats next, Buy a Chevy Volt or pay a fine? Put Solar panels on your house or be fined?

It would never end. It is far to open ended.

This nation was built on the idea of limiting the Feds power. If the Health care mandate is legal then that Limitation is all but gone.

So under this limitation:

Doctors should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Lawyers should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Toy manufacturers should not be subject to any safety regulations.

The food industry should have no standards imposed by them from government.

There should be no safety codes in regards to construction.

The Federal government should never regulate or prohibit what sorts of merchandise gets traded.

There are more..and I could continue...

But are these notions things that are bought into by conservatives? I mean I think they are..just want the clarity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So under this limitation:
Doctors should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.
Lawyers should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

You know these are state, not federal, licenses right?
And they are not from a government agency per se, but the relevant professional associations/boards?
The answer: Obviously not.

T
oy manufacturers should not be subject to any safety regulations.
The food industry should have no standards imposed by them from government.

See: Strawman - "Moral High ground"

There should be no safety codes in regards to construction.

Again: State, not federal codes.

The Federal government should never regulate or prohibit what sorts of merchandise gets traded

Like... cocaine?

There are more..and I could continue...

And you'd only continue to illustrate your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

 

[Sallow]

The problem is that people refuse to read and understand the constitution. I just got done reading swallow try and explain why the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual one and have heard NUMEROUS times about how Obama understands the constitution because he was a constitutional scholar or some other such drivel so Obama care can't be unconstitutional. What everyone seems to fail to understand is that the constitution is not that complicated. you do not need to be a scholar to understand what the forefathers were attempting to create or to understand the simple language that it is written in. Application within the broader laws built on the constitution and the nuances of the many situations it can apply to may need far more education but as far as understanding the basics, it is not that difficult. Most of the constitution is written in pretty simple language. It is sad that people in this country need to be told what the constitution says and stands for by others instead of taking the personal responsibility in understanding it.

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

And the standing army was never meant to be permanent. Of course the reality of the world changed both those ideals. And this is barely argued among conservatives. The most provocative modern argument was Eisenhower's admonishment about the corporate - military structure.

But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits. The fact no such limits exist in the Constitution has conservatives yammering about "intent". The founders were "progressive" enough (Yes..Virginia, it was mostly Liberals that wrote the Constitution) to recognize that the state would grow and that a "template" that was broad in scope for governing was the only way to insure that the United States would be a lasting..and viable nation, for a long time.

I have no trouble with Federal limits on indivdual rights. But that is also something that neither argued about much, or, in fact trashed by Conservatives. Once they started defending the idea of "Enemy Combatants" and defending "Torture", any notion, that conservative defend the idea of indivdual liberty was dashed completely.

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicit advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

Please point out the clause(s) in the Constitution that lead you to this belief.
Make sure you compare and contrast these clauses with the powers specifically granted to raise an army and navy.

 

[Sallow]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicit advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

Please point out the clause(s) in the Constitution that lead you to this belief.
Make sure you compare and contrast theese clauses with the powers specifically granted to raise an army and navy.

It's been done by me multiple times for you. Basically your "retorts" are "that's not true".

There's no point in covering this ground over and over.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicit advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

Please point out the clause(s) in the Constitution that lead you to this belief.
Make sure you compare and contrast theese clauses with the powers specifically granted to raise an army and navy.

It's been done by me multiple times for you. Basically your "retorts" are "that's not true".

There's no point in covering this ground over and over.

Translation:
You cannot deliver.
Not a surprise.

 

[Sallow]

Please point out the clause(s) in the Constitution that lead you to this belief.
Make sure you compare and contrast theese clauses with the powers specifically granted to raise an army and navy.

It's been done by me multiple times for you. Basically your "retorts" are "that's not true".

There's no point in covering this ground over and over.

Translation:
You cannot deliver.
Not a surprise.

No.

I have in multiple threads with you.

That you can't read the constitution on your own is not my problem. I can only lead a horse to water.

In any case. Since I am constantly answering your questions..and the very same questions thread after thread. Allow me to pose a couple.

What was the Militia act all about?

What happened to the Continental Army after the American Revolution?