The Constitution says the federal government is limited in its power to only make laws affecting interstate commerce and international law.  Other then that they dont really have any "lawmaking" powers as far as 'crime', 'arms' or anything else goes.

The federal government is supposed to be for determining what we pay for tax,  what our enforcement of international law is,  how the courts within the country operate,  for crimes on the seas, and for regulating interstate commerce.

What is going on?

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted VERY broadly in the last half-century.  Central governments like POWER, that's what's going on.

This is why.

How does "possesing a rifle" have anything to do with commerce?  How does "manufacturing" firearms have anything to do with commerce?  

What did Abraham Lincoln have to do with all of this?  Im interested.

Quoted: The Commerce Clause has been interpreted VERY broadly in the last half-century.  Central governments like POWER, that's what's going on.

Yup.  Look at the Raich decision.  The USSC ruled that the fed.gov can regulate marijuana that is grown for the grower's own consumption because, while not in interstate commerce, it does AFFECT interstate commerce since the grower might otherwise buy it from an out of state source.

I'm wondering where the Supreme court gets its weed, 'cause it's gotta be some really good shit!

Becuase there's only one clarence thomas on the supreme court.

Quoted: Quoted: The Commerce Clause has been interpreted VERY broadly in the last half-century.  Central governments like POWER, that's what's going on. Yup.  Look at the Raich decision.  The USSC ruled that the fed.gov can regulate marijuana that is grown for the grower's own consumption because, while not in interstate commerce, it does AFFECT interstate commerce since the grower might otherwise buy it from an out of state source. I'm wondering where the Supreme court gets its weed, 'cause it's gotta be some really good shit!hr

Did they only regulate the "interstate" dealing of marijuana?  I dont see how they have the power to regulate it within the States.  Are judges really that disloyal to the Constitution?  Especially the Supreme Court hock.gif.

I read the laws at uscode.house.gov and the majority of them have nothing to do with commerce or the military.  It really gave me a sick feeling.  How do the States put up with it?  You would think each State would want their say in how they handled crime,  the 2nd amendment,  etc etc etc.

Quoted: This is why. lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a50000/3a53000/3a53200/3a53289r.jpg

FU lincoln

Quoted: How does "possesing a rifle" have anything to do with commerce?  How does "manufacturing" firearms have anything to do with commerce?

A Bushmaster rifles is manufactured in Maine, right?  Unless you live in Maine, if you buy one it's automatically considered "interstate commerce"

The much more insidious argument that has been used to broaden the power is to say that anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce in any way is somehow allowed to be regulated by Congress.  Push ANYTHING far enough in this interconnected economy we have, and of course it affects something in another state.  It's like a political version of playing "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon"  

Now maybe people will understand why we Southerners refer to a certain period of our history that occurred during 1861-65 as the "War of Northern Aggression."

I hear that it is also known as the "Civil War" in some circles. Unfortunately, there was nothing "civil" about the way Sherman and his damned Yankees burned Atlanta, a place that hasn't been right since. But that's another story.

Quoted: Quoted: How does "possesing a rifle" have anything to do with commerce?  How does "manufacturing" firearms have anything to do with commerce?   A Bushmaster rifles is manufactured in Maine, right?  Unless you live in Maine, if you buy one it's automatically considered "interstate commerce" The much more insidious argument that has been used to broaden the power is to say that anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce in any way is somehow allowed to be regulated by Congress.  Push ANYTHING far enough in this interconnected economy we have, and of course it affects something in another state.  It's like a political version of playing "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon"  hinking.gif

I understand that if I bought a rifle manufactured in another State it would be considered "interstate commerce",  but what if I bought a rifle manufactured in my own home State of Rhode Island?  Federal Law still says the manufacturer has to have a federal license and I beleive I have to still fill out a "federal transfer form".  Not sure on that 100%,  that is my assumption.  At least on getting a manufacturing license.

It doesnt affect interstate commerce until it actually affects it.  I dont see that argument as "reasonably valid".

So the assumption I now have is the government is holding the people ransom because "they can",  and they can "play dumb" to the common sense of their wrongdoing?

I really thought this country was better then that.

Quoted: Now maybe people will understand why we Southerners refer to a certain period of our history that occurred during 1861-65 as the "War of Northern Aggression." I hear that it is also known as the "Civil War" in some circles. Unfortunately, there was nothing "civil" about the way Sherman and his damned Yankees burned Atlanta, a place that hasn't been right since. But that's another story.

I thought the civil war was because certain States wanted to succeed?

Are you saying the civil war was fought because people wanted the federal government to overthrow the constitution and take over power?

That is new history to me.  I thought we still followed the Constitution.  Am I wrong?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How does "possesing a rifle" have anything to do with commerce?  How does "manufacturing" firearms have anything to do with commerce?   A Bushmaster rifles is manufactured in Maine, right?  Unless you live in Maine, if you buy one it's automatically considered "interstate commerce" The much more insidious argument that has been used to broaden the power is to say that anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce in any way is somehow allowed to be regulated by Congress.  Push ANYTHING far enough in this interconnected economy we have, and of course it affects something in another state.  It's like a political version of playing "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon"   I understand that if I bought a rifle manufactured in another State it would be considered "interstate commerce",  but what if I bought a rifle manufactured in my own home State of Rhode Island?  Federal Law still says the manufacturer has to have a federal license and I beleive I have to still fill out a "federal transfer form".  Not sure on that 100%,  that is my assumption.  At least on getting a manufacturing license. It doesnt affect interstate commerce until it actually affects it.  I dont see that argument as really "reasonably valid". So the assumption I now have is the government is holding the people ransom because "they can do whatever they want",  and they can "play dumb" to common sense? I really thought this country was better then that.

Your statement in red is correct.

All kinds of convoluted bullshit arguments are made to try to create a link to "interstate commerce."  As someone else pointed out, a recent case made the argument that a person growing marijuana for his own use, nothing more, was somehow covered by the interstate commerce clause (because drugs IN GENERAL affect interstate commerce, or because his growing lamps came from another state, or who knows ).

And so unfortunately, it's not about YOUR individual firearm, it's about firearms in general - and since many ARE traded across state lines, or manufactured from parts that crossed state lines (after all, did ALL THE PARTS from your hypothetical rifle manufactured in Rhode Island really originate in Rhode Island?) - then Congress can extend their power over all of them.  

Quoted: Now maybe people will understand why we Southerners refer to a certain period of our history that occurred during 1861-65 as the "War of Northern Aggression." I hear that it is also known as the "Civil War" in some circles. Unfortunately, there was nothing "civil" about the way Sherman and his damned Yankees burned Atlanta, a place that hasn't been right since. But that's another story.

As I could never really be considered a "Yankee" or a "Rebel", since to the best of my knowledge, none of my family was in the US before that war, I really have no perspective on this.  However, more and more, I find myself supporting the southern position.

the thugs who make up the government do what they want because we don't stand up to them

Quoted: the thugs who make up the government do what they want because we don't stand up to them

Isnt this what the United States Military is for?  Where is the Military!?

They should at least put the question on the next poll.  Im sure America can see the wrong in this.  The federal government was never structured with this much power.

EDIT:  I meant where is the Militia,  but I recognized we dont have a militia anymore.

because a lot of people in the government don't give a flying fuck about the US Constitution.


most of the laws that are passed by congress under their power to "regulate interstate commerce" having nothing to do with interstate commerce.

Someday they will decide that making laws about what goes on in our brains is ok under interstate commerce.  "Thought crime" affects interstate commerce!!  You will think what we tell you to think!

The War of Northern Aggression was fought because the Federal Government did not respect States' Rights and sent its army to enforce the point. The "war" part resulted from the Northern invasion.

The War of Northern Aggression was fought as an exercise of Federal power that ignored the rights of the states to determine their own destiny. Said another way, the Federal Government ignored the Constitution and asserted its will on the people of the South. Lincoln suspending the rights of habeas corpus, stripping Southern soldiers of their citizenship and the forced Reconstruction following the War are all examples of this.

Quoted: Quoted: Now maybe people will understand why we Southerners refer to a certain period of our history that occurred during 1861-65 as the "War of Northern Aggression." I hear that it is also known as the "Civil War" in some circles. Unfortunately, there was nothing "civil" about the way Sherman and his damned Yankees burned Atlanta, a place that hasn't been right since. But that's another story. As I could never really be considered a "Yankee" or a "Rebel", since to the best of my knowledge, none of my family was in the US before that war, I really have no perspective on this.  However, more and more, I find myself supporting the southern position.

My great, great grandfather was a captain in the North Carolina militia.

Quoted: Quoted: the thugs who make up the government do what they want because we don't stand up to them Isnt this what the United States Military is for?  Where is the Military!? They should at least put the question on the next poll.  Im sure America can see the wrong in this.  The federal government was never structured with this much power.

No, this is what the 2nd Amendment is for, and why the Founding Fathers weren't a fan of a large, standing army during peacetime.

The rather unlimited scope of 'interstate commerce' is what is really going to do us all in.  Kelo didn't help either.

You guys give Lincoln too much credit.

Read "FDR's Folly" for the lowdown on how he and his fellow travelors screwed up America to the extent it will not recover.

FDR depended the Depression.  Emporer Hirohito saved us from FDR by starting the war.  Otherwise, FDR would have detroyed not only the economy but also what few freedoms we had left.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the thugs who make up the government do what they want because we don't stand up to them Isnt this what the United States Military is for?  Where is the Military!? They should at least put the question on the next poll.  Im sure America can see the wrong in this.  The federal government was never structured with this much power. No, this is what the 2nd Amendment is for, and why the Founding Fathers weren't a fan of a large, standing army during peacetime. The rather unlimited scope of 'interstate commerce' is what is really going to do us all in.  Kelo didn't help either.

Sorry yes I meant the militia.  I understand a standing army over a disarmed populace is "the greatest bane to freedom".

Too bad we dont have a militia anymore.  I think it really shows with the integrity of our government.

Quoted: The Commerce Clause has been interpreted VERY broadly in the last half-century.  Central governments like POWER, that's what's going on.

Interstate commerce does not have to be between states or be commerce.

Quoted: Interstate commerce does not have to be between states or be commerce.

Care to elaborate on a statement that appears to be an inherent contradiction?

Quoted: Becuase there's only one clarence thomas on the supreme court.

Thomas AND Scalia ruled on the wrong side of the Raich case.

One of the earlier responses was correct in saying that the interstate commerce clause is interpreted that actions you perceive as having absolutely no effect on interstate commerce (growing your own weed, making an auto sear for your AR, etc...) is regulatable by the federal government because, if you didn't do it yourself, you'd probably have to cross state lines to get it.

Totally ridiculous, I know.  But SCOTUS has limited it in the past, for example in the Gun Free School Zones Act in the early 90s.  SCOTUS ruled that having a firearm near a school did not, itself, affect interstate commerce and struck down the federal law.  Manufacturing is a different story.

Quoted: One of the earlier responses was correct in saying that the interstate commerce clause is interpreted that actions you perceive as having absolutely no effect on interstate commerce (growing your own weed, making an auto sear for your AR, etc...) is regulatable by the federal government because, if you didn't do it yourself, you'd probably have to cross state lines to get it. Totally ridiculous, I know.  But SCOTUS has limited it in the past, for example in the Gun Free School Zones Act in the early 90s.  SCOTUS ruled that having a firearm near a school did not, itself, affect interstate commerce and struck down the federal law.  Manufacturing is a different story.

So the SCOTUS has ruled that possesing firearms near schools does not affect interstate commerce.  

So each law has to be challenged in the Supreme Court until it gets abolished?  That is not an efficient system,  it should only take SCOTUS a short time to deduct what laws are unconstitutional.

I can run down the federal US code in 5 minutes and find the good majoirty of them.  Why is SCOTUS so slow?

Quoted: You guys give Lincoln too much credit. Read "FDR's Folly" for the lowdown on how he and his fellow travelors screwed up America to the extent it will not recover. FDR depended the Depression.  Emporer Hirohito saved us from FDR by starting the war.  Otherwise, FDR would have detroyed not only the economy but also what few freedoms we had left.

Hit the nail on the head. FDR was cockstroking his Marxist-socialist dream of the era. The war only helped him. This is why we have the NFA, Fed income taxes, inheritance taxes, and most other reprehensible and oppresive laws in this country including the ICC. The lawyers learned they could fuck over 100 million people and their servants in enforcement who were happy to have jobs at all decided that it was patriotic to blindly follow their political masters. FDR wasn't Hitler, he wasn't Stalin, but he was still an anti-freedom piece of shit.

Quoted: Quoted: the thugs who make up the government do what they want because we don't stand up to them Isnt this what the United States Military is for?  Where is the Military!? They should at least put the question on the next poll.  Im sure America can see the wrong in this.  The federal government was never structured with this much power. EDIT:  I meant where is the Militia,  but I recognized we dont have a militia anymore.

Nope, the military is supposed to do the will of our elected officials, not the will of the people.  The military would fight the militia in the event a militia were formed that posed a threat to the current US Govt, but then again most of us in the military wouldnt fight fellow Americans who have a good cause.  I think the people fail to realize they have an aweful lot of military members who would side with them to make a greater US.

To make a weak Devil's Advocate argument, you can build your own firearm sans serial number as long as it is for your own personal use.  

If it has enough U.S.-made parts then you can also build a semi-auto mag-fed rifle with folding stock, etc.

You can also build your own machine gun if it stays in your state.  Oh wait, you can't.  Why not?  Good question.

Here's my take on your thread title;

How come the federal government regulates arms that are not related to interstate commerce?

(Sorry for the thread hi-jack, but the gov't has no business infringing on our rights).

Quoted: ... but then again most of us in the military wouldnt fight fellow Americans who have a good cause.  I think the people fail to realize they have an aweful lot of military members who would side with them to make a greater US.

I'd like to think that, but it didn't turn out so well for the Bonus Marchers... and they were all WW1 veterans themselves.

Quoted: Quoted: Becuase there's only one clarence thomas on the supreme court. Thomas AND Scalia ruled on the wrong side of the Raich case.

WRONG

That needs to be bolded bacause Thomas dissented big time. This case is one of the reasons I mentioned his name.

straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

Justice Thomas, dissenting.    Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Which shows why Clarence Thomas is my favorite justice.

Quoted: You guys give Lincoln too much credit. Read "FDR's Folly" for the lowdown on how he and his fellow travelors screwed up America to the extent it will not recover. FDR depended the Depression.  Emporer Hirohito saved us from FDR by starting the war.  Otherwise, FDR would have detroyed not only the economy but also what few freedoms we had left.

Leave it to a freaking New York Liberal Democrat! Some things just don't change, even 70 years later.

G-d help us if Hitlary gets back into the White House in '08.

Quoted: Quoted: Interstate commerce does not have to be between states or be commerce. Care to elaborate on a statement that appears to be an inherent contradiction?

Not really.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Interstate commerce does not have to be between states or be commerce. Care to elaborate on a statement that appears to be an inherent contradiction? Not really.

Ooookkkaaaayyyyy thennnn......

Quoted: So each law has to be challenged in the Supreme Court until it gets abolished?  That is not an efficient system,  it should only take SCOTUS a short time to deduct what laws are unconstitutional. I can run down the federal US code in 5 minutes and find the good majoirty of them.  Why is SCOTUS so slow?

SCOTUS can only decide cases that are brought to them(and only those they choose to accept), they do not vet every bill that becomes law for constitutionality.

I agree it is an inefficient way of doing things.

Quoted: The Commerce Clause has been interpreted VERY broadly in the last half-century.  Central governments like POWER, that's what's going on.

Power-Lust!!!!!....pure and simple!

Gov.org cannot have the peasants armed like the military.......they don't like the competition!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the thugs who make up the government do what they want because we don't stand up to them Isnt this what the United States Military is for?  Where is the Military!? They should at least put the question on the next poll.  Im sure America can see the wrong in this.  The federal government was never structured with this much power. No, this is what the 2nd Amendment is for, and why the Founding Fathers weren't a fan of a large, standing army during peacetime. The rather unlimited scope of 'interstate commerce' is what is really going to do us all in.  Kelo didn't help either. Sorry yes I meant the militia.  I understand a standing army over a disarmed populace is "the greatest bane to freedom". Too bad we dont have a militia anymore.  I think it really shows with the integrity of our government.

RI has militia:  RI Militia

Quoted: To make a weak Devil's Advocate argument, you can build your own firearm sans serial number as long as it is for your own personal use.   If it has enough U.S.-made parts then you can also build a semi-auto mag-fed rifle with folding stock, etc. You can also build your own machine gun if it stays in your state.  Oh wait, you can't.  Why not?  Good question.hr

Alot of the laws are not written clearly.

Take this one:

"    (8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor
     piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply
     to -
         (A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
       such ammunition for use of the United States or any department
       or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or
       political subdivision thereof;
         (B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
       such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;
         (C) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
       such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting
       authorized by the Attorney General; and"

There are two statutes about armor piercing ammunition.  One states specifically interstate or foreign commerce,  this one states armor piercing ammunition in general.

There there are these laws:

"(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
   manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or
   deliver -
       (1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the
     licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than
     eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is
     other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or
     rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable
     cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;"

While good intentions im sure,  it is not clear this is in relation to only interstate or foreign commerce.

And then:

" (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
   manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or
   deliver -
         4) to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as
     defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
     short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as
     specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with
     public safety and necessity;"

How that affects interstate commerce I am unsure.  How these laws are constitutional to the 2nd amendment I am also unsure.

And then this:

"(a) No person shall engage in the business of importing,
   manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or
   manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with
   and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The
   application shall be in such form and contain only that information
   necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney
   General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a
   photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall
   pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being
   required for each place in which the applicant is to do business,
   as follows:
     (1) If the applicant is a manufacturer -
       (A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive devices
     or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year;
       (B) of firearms other than destructive devices, a fee of $50
     per year; or
       (C) of ammunition for firearms, other than ammunition for
     destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $10
     per year.
    (3) If the applicant is a dealer -
       (A) in destructive devices or ammunition for destructive
     devices, a fee of $1,000 per year; or
       (B) who is not a dealer in destructive devices, a fee of $200
     for 3 years, except that the fee for renewal of a valid license
     shall be $90 for 3 years."

It says "manufacturers" and "dealers" in general need a federal license.  How that relates to interstate or foreign commerce is not clear.

There are whole "chapters" of federal law that have nothing to do with interstate or foreign commerce.   Like laws on "civil disorders",  "conspiracy",  "espionage on us citizens".  All of these powers are reserved for the States to decide.  I dont understand how they created all of these laws.

Old people still vote for FDR and Truman

Quoted: Old people still vote for FDR and Truman

They'll be dead soon.

Quoted: One of the earlier responses was correct in saying that the interstate commerce clause is interpreted that actions you perceive as having absolutely no effect on interstate commerce (growing your own weed, making an auto sear for your AR, etc...) is regulatable by the federal government because, if you didn't do it yourself, you'd probably have to cross state lines to get it. Totally ridiculous, I know.  But SCOTUS has limited it in the past, for example in the Gun Free School Zones Act in the early 90s.  SCOTUS ruled that having a firearm near a school did not, itself, affect interstate commerce and struck down the federal law.  Manufacturing is a different story.

The case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), where the Supreme Court held that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect."  The guy was growing wheat on his own property to use on his own farm, contrary to a wheat quota limit, and the law was held to apply to the farmer's home-grown wheat.

FYI: The holding that the Gun-Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause was the FIRST case since Wickard where the SCt did not uphold the law under the commerce clause having applied rational level review.

And to answer the question, "what's going on?"...

Quoted: The Constitution says the federal government is limited in its power to only make laws affecting interstate commerce and international law. Other then that they dont really have any "lawmaking" powers as far as 'crime', 'arms' or anything else goes. The federal government is supposed to be for determining what we pay for tax, what our enforcement of international law is, how the courts within the country operate, for crimes on the seas, and for regulating interstate commerce. What is going on?

... see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

There's alot more going on there than "power to only make laws affecting interstate commerce and international law"

The "necessary and proper" clause allows the Congress to "provide for ... the general welfare of the United States" and carry-out its enumerated powers through the passage of criminal laws  (with the limitation that the federal government does not have a general "police power", which is reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment.)(*footnote 1)

Thereore, the the premise of this question, "Other then that they dont really have any "lawmaking" powers as far as 'crime', 'arms' or anything else goes" needs to be corrected. (*footnote 2)


Cheers, Otto

*Footnote 1: However, it has been said that my "blind ignorance to the Constitution and the judicial system is pretty insulting." See General •  Legal Section •  How do you file suit against the United States government?  

In my defense, I can at least read the Constitution before making authoratative statements about what it does and does not allow.

*Footnote 2: Note that the National Firearms Act is in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the Internal Revenue Service, or "Tax Code", not Title 18, the Criminal Code.  But the poster, ImplementOfWar, having "just read the entire Federal US Code" probably knew that.

Quoted: I thought we still followed the Constitution.  Am I wrong?

If we still followed the Constitution, there would be no BATFE as regulating said items are no part of the list of jobs the Constitution lays out for the FedGov. Same for the DEA, FAA, FCC, and the FDA.

Quoted: The War of Northern Aggression was fought because the Federal Government did not respect States' Rights and sent its army to enforce the point. The "war" part resulted from the Northern invasion. The War of Northern Aggression was fought as an exercise of Federal power that ignored the rights of the states to determine their own destiny. Said another way, the Federal Government ignored the Constitution and asserted its will on the people of the South. Lincoln suspending the rights of habeas corpus, stripping Southern soldiers of their citizenship and the forced Reconstruction following the War are all examples of this.

Which is an interesting point of view considering the South tried to steal  Federal Property, fired first, restricted habeus corpus, de facto first, de jure second, started closing newspapers, even some supportive of the South before Ft. Sumter, changed it's laws on internal passports and travel to include all citizens and not just blacks, and had more political prisoners and hanged a hell of a lot more than the North.  

Quoted: Quoted: The War of Northern Aggression was fought because the Federal Government did not respect States' Rights and sent its army to enforce the point. The "war" part resulted from the Northern invasion. The War of Northern Aggression was fought as an exercise of Federal power that ignored the rights of the states to determine their own destiny. Said another way, the Federal Government ignored the Constitution and asserted its will on the people of the South. Lincoln suspending the rights of habeas corpus, stripping Southern soldiers of their citizenship and the forced Reconstruction following the War are all examples of this. Which is an interesting point of view considering the South tried to steal  Federal Property, fired first, restricted habeus corpus, de facto first, de jure second, started closing newspapers, even some supportive of the South before Ft. Sumter, changed it's laws on internal passports and travel to include all citizens and not just blacks, and had more political prisoners and hanged a hell of a lot more than the North.

I guess you back people into a corner you might get bit. By the way Lincoln was a de facto dictator during the Civil War also. Of course the Draft Riots in New York wasn't to civilized also. Just a few points.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Interstate commerce does not have to be between states or be commerce. Care to elaborate on a statement that appears to be an inherent contradiction? Not really. Ooookkkaaaayyyyy thennnn......

Well, at least that's how the SC sees it.  You might want to argue with them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Interstate commerce does not have to be between states or be commerce. Care to elaborate on a statement that appears to be an inherent contradiction?

Gentlemen:
(from above, responding to SpecialOperator) The case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), where the Supreme Court held that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect." The guy was growing wheat on his own property to use on his own farm, contrary to a wheat quota limit, and the law was held to apply to the farmer's home-grown wheat.

So the regulated activity does not have to be "interstate" (or even "intrastate") nor exactly "commerce" if it has a "substantial impact" on interstate commerce.

That has been the test for constitutional regulation under the commerce clause over 60 years now.

Cheers, Otto

Because they are the Federal Government, and since the US Constitution has become worthless relic they can do whatever they want.

Quoted: Unfortunately, there was nothing "civil" about the way Sherman and his damned Yankees burned Atlanta, a place that hasn't been right since.

Wacky fun.