The Interstate Commerce Clause.

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

If people are willing to argue which party is better than the other, what can you expect ?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank heavens the far rightwing can only propose, while indeed the Supreme Court does dispose.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

I love when brain dead morons act like they know better than the Founding Fathers what the constitution says.

"The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function."

.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I love braindead people who seem to not have an opinion except when the experts tell them so or authority says it.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

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.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

They can't do that just yet. There are entirely too many rules and regulations that would have to be dismantled especially within the military.....UCMJ Article 112A comes to mind immediately. Another concern of theirs is that the people currently involved in the transportation, smuggling and sale of illegal marijuana would become legitimate business men.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

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.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

 

[Annie]

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.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

When it was ratified, Article VI 'Supremacy Clause':

..This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....

now through SCOTUS rulings and laws passed, have state's rights been usurped? That may be argued, but not the Federal system itself.

 

[Contumacious]

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

When it was ratified, Article VI 'Supremacy Clause':

Elaborate.

..This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....

now through SCOTUS rulings and laws passed, have state's rights been usurped? That may be argued, but not the Federal system itself.

State rights have bee usurped. It is none of the federal government business if John Doe is smoking a joint.

.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

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.

you know, i've practiced for almost two decades, was admitted to practice in two states, the federal courts and the USSC and written many, many petitions opposing cert during the course of my career and I don't hold myself out as having the expertise that these brain dead twits do.

I'm not sure what you think Kelo has to do with this case. Kelo was a bad result, but was consistent with all of the zoning precedents that came before it. Sometimes good law gives bad results (a la Kelo) Sometimes there are good results but bad law (a la Roe). Sometimes there are just bad decisions... (a la Dred Scott).

The "people" have the power that is enforced on their behalf by government. No more, no less.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Yeah... You're so right...

I mean after all the Constitution isn't written in a common language... So it's not like anyone whose mastered that langauge could just read it and 'know' what it says, based upon the words used to convey the specific concepts which those various words represent.

It takes a special training to read the US Constitution; one needs to be able to detach their minds from reason and conjure from the ether, what THEY need the Constitution to mean.

And that's a SPECIAL POWER INDEED.

I have such a power... and while it might seem that such is a blessing; I can assure you that it's a curse, as well.

For instance, I enjoy the company of several friends who gather regularly to play poker.

We each agree to play by the "Rules of Poker" which are written in a small book; which provides the rules for many wonderful 'games of chance'...

And given that I have this power; a power which towers over the pedestrian intellectual means of my fellow players... I 'interpret' the rules...

Now you would be amazed at how contentious this can get... as simple as their minds are; they simply can't understand why the people who published the rules, would use words and phrases, with such broad, indefinable terms.

And what's more is the temerity they advance, when those clearly stated rules consistently favor the scope of cards which are dealt to me... AS IF I HAD DEALT THE CARDS TO MYSELF!

LOL... Children.

So they demand that THEY should be allowed to 'interpret' the rules... and this based upon the absurdity that they are qualified to do so... They can't even muster the tolerance of my superior training and intellect; where I've dedicated YEARS of specialized, intense training and research, to be able to deduce the underlying INTENT of those who write 'The Rules'... Let alone Compassion for those who may enjoy the intended BENEFITS of those underlying intentions; where equality was squared with FAIRNESS!

After all, it's my HOUSE... everyone agreed that the game would be played at my house; thus they agreed, by default that I would be in charge... and therefore would have the power to say what the rules are; and using the Humanist species of reasoning; elections have consequences... and where I am elected to be in charge, I can 'interpret the rules any way I want... AND IF THAT INTERPRETATION JUST HAPPENS TO BENEFIT AND OTHERWISE INCREASE MY POWER...

Well tough dookie... MY HOUSE MY RULES... after all...

IT'S ONLY FAIR! ​