Quoted:
I choose to slam my face into a brick wall rather than argue with hardcore liberals. Over all it is far less painful and more productive than conversing with them.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=29879


WHAT DOES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MEAN?


The first thing we need to understand when discussing the provisions of the US Constitution is to identify the nature of the document. To find out, we go here, to Black's Law Dictionary where it describes the document.

The Constitution is: "The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state establishing the character and conception of its government... (It) lay(s) the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers."

Among the several powers granted to the federal government includes the "Commerce" clause. Black's Law Dictionary tells us the present meaning recognized commonly today. It reads:

"Commerce Clause" (Are) the provisions of (the) U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). This power is the basis for a considerable amount of federal legislation and regulation."

Black's Law Dictionary refers us to the "Cooley Doctrine" to expound upon this power. The dictionary reads:

"Doctrine which holds that state is deprived of all regulatory power as to subjects which 'are in their nature national, or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation" This is from a court case "Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 53, U.S. (12 How.) 299, 13 L.Ed. 996." (See Premption.)

OK! OK! Dave, stop with the mumbo jumbo and talk about where this is going already! OK fine!

Here we have shown how government has interpreted the Commerce Clause in the Constitution as source to exercise vast powers. There are court cases that seem to confirm the idea of the vastness of power to regulate commerce. We even have Supreme Court cases that seem to do the same.

But, does the U.S. Constitution actually grant all this vast power to the federal government? I don't think it does, and here's why.

First, there is a little bit more to the definition of a Constitution than I supplied above. The rest of it reveals:

(The Constitution is) the written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union, or of a particular State, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments, and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it..."

We need to recognize something about this part of the definition of our Constitution. It declares that it is an instrument that was agreed upon by the people of the Union, or a particular State. As far as the agreement of the state, that was done by states as they were admitted to the Union of States. It was agreed upon by the people and made effective May 29, 1790. And the agreement meant certain things that change only on the authority of the people who established it.

It seems to me that we have an awkward situation considering the forgoing declaration in the previous paragraph. The courts, including the Supreme Court expanded the originators original meaning. Or did they?

The meaning of "commerce" as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, seems to have a much narrower meaning. They believed that "Commerce" meant and was limited to the exchange of good between the States. They applied the definition to the transactions of exchange of goods between one point and another. Commerce, as defined and treated and limited then to the transport of goods, not the production, sales, quality, or anything else outside of the transport of trade goods.

The power to regulate "commerce" was granted Let's put it to a test....

See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (discussing competitions of commerce between States resulting from state regulations of trade); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an acknowledged object of the Convention . . . that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government) ...Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.

Oh my goodness; there is a conflict between the original meaning agreed upon by the people, and that of today's courts, and the expanse of powers actually exercised today.

The word "commerce" as used by our founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with a regulatory power over the manufacturing or production of goods within the various State borders, but has been usurped by our federal government which acts in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted!

We should ask, is there anything more to reveal the true meaning?

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution tell us: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

Madison wrote this: "A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility."

So, "Commerce" meant and applied to the transport of goods. It did not apply to production, farming, or anything else. It applied only to the transport of goods from place to another. And "Regulate" means, to be evenly treated. Think of a governor on a truck, or cruse control on a car. It means to maintain even trade between parties.

So, I need to ask; "which rules here?" Does the current treatment of "Commerce" rule? Or, does the original intent of "Commerce" rule until altered by the people? The true answer should be clear now. But, what will you do about it? I can't offer much for a solution, but I can present this idea:

The States are a part of this. Both the federal Senate and the State senates act to guard the Constitution in terms of "Mutual Assent" (the original meaning). Maybe it's time energize the State senates to do their job. After all, the federal government works for the States.

Quoted:
can't argue stupid.

Quoted:


There is no way you can win an argument with a liberals, they make up facts, they deny facts, they lie . . .


It just isn't worth the trouble. You are better off avoiding them altogther.

Quoted:





basically it means to "keep commerce regular" and to assure individuals who want to move or trade over interstate lines that they can do so without having to worry another state denying them that ability.

Quoted:




"The Commerce Clause enables all manner of government projects, such as social security, medicare, medicaid, FDIC, purchasing auto insurance (wrong)" and added "Good luck overturning 80 years of legal precedent."  Looks like this one came to fight.

Quoted:
Before I could say anything more my cousin chimed in and demanded to know under what clause of the constitution Congress has the authority to mandate all citizens to buy health insurance.  She responded by copying and pasting a response from her boyfriend whose answer was basically "The Commerce Clause enables all manner of government projects, such as social security, medicare, medicaid, FDIC, purchasing auto insurance (wrong)" and added "Good luck overturning 80 years of legal precedent."  Looks like this one came to fight.

Quoted:
.

Before I could say anything more my cousin chimed in and demanded to know under what clause of the constitution Congress has the authority to mandate all citizens to buy health insurance.  She responded by copying and pasting a response from her boyfriend whose answer was basically "The Commerce Clause enables all manner of government projects, such as social security, medicare, medicaid, FDIC, purchasing auto insurance (wrong)" and added "Good luck overturning 80 years of legal precedent."  Looks like this one came to fight.

Quoted:



1st post wins