johnwk
06-13-2009, 07:20 AM
SEE: Congress Sends Obama Bill to Regulate Tobacco (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/06/12/ST2009061202324.html)
By a 3 to 1 margin, the House of Representatives today approved a bill passed by the Senate yesterday that gives the federal government sweeping new powers to regulate tobacco.
President Obama hailed the bipartisan votes in Congress on the bill, which he said "truly defines change in Washington." He said he looks forward to signing it into law.
The problem with H.R. 1256: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1256 ) is, Congress has not been granted a power to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products, or any products, and, every Republican who voted in favor of the bill has participated in another assault upon our constitutionally limited system of government and sided with those in Washington who work feverishly, day and night, to create a federal government without defined and limited powers, and, they mock the very reason for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!
Of course, we are led to believe by those who VOTED YEA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-187) on the passage of the bill, that Congress’s power to regulate Commerce was intended to allow Congress to enter the states and regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products within the various states. But the historical evidence, during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, establishes something far different regarding the power granted to Congress to regulate commerce. Let us look as some irrefutable facts.
A fundamental rule of constitutional law is, words contained in our Constitution carry the same meaning today as they did when the Constitution was framed and ratified. So, what was the meaning of “commerce” to those who framed and ratified our Constitution?
The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution was synonymous with “trade” ___ the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B.
The delegated power over commerce as intended by our founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with a policing power over the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of goods, wares, or merchandise, nor a policing power over the cultivation of agricultural products or their use. As a mater of fact it is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be surrendering a policing power to Congress allowing Congress to henceforth enter the states to dictate the regulation of a state’s manufacturing industry, or regulate its agricultural industry, or was given the dictatorial powers as described in The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1256 )
As we shall see, Congress was given the power to regulate commerce for a very narrow purpose ___ to insure free trade among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through a state.
Let us take a look at the historical intentions of those who granted the power in question. A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.
“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.”
Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers . . . to insure an uninhibited trade [movement of goods] among the states and nothing more!
As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:
“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.”
The power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders, and that is the limited power granted as established by the historical record!
Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area related to commerce __ oversight dealing with each state‘s inspection laws:
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
If our beloved RINOs were sincere about the health consequences connected with smoking, and obedient to our Constitution and the oath of office they took to support “this Constitution“, they would ask the people of the states via Article V of our Constitution for the desired power to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products, just as was done with regard to prohibition and “intoxicating liquors” by the 18th Amendment:
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Of course, this regulatory power was withdraw by the people when they adopted THE TWENTY FIRST AMENDMENT (http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html)
So which of our Republicans who VOTED YEA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-187) to authorize the exercise the stated powers over tobacco, is willing to point to and substantiate from the historical record that Congress is vested with the power to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products which they now intend to exercise?
Fact is, the majority of Republicans in Congress are nothing more than progressive democrats who cleverly work with democrats to seize powers not authorized by our written Constitution, and they thumb their nose at our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, our constitution’s plan. In short, they are low life and spineless cowards!
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=98&itemLink)
By a 3 to 1 margin, the House of Representatives today approved a bill passed by the Senate yesterday that gives the federal government sweeping new powers to regulate tobacco.
President Obama hailed the bipartisan votes in Congress on the bill, which he said "truly defines change in Washington." He said he looks forward to signing it into law.
The problem with H.R. 1256: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1256 ) is, Congress has not been granted a power to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products, or any products, and, every Republican who voted in favor of the bill has participated in another assault upon our constitutionally limited system of government and sided with those in Washington who work feverishly, day and night, to create a federal government without defined and limited powers, and, they mock the very reason for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!
Of course, we are led to believe by those who VOTED YEA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-187) on the passage of the bill, that Congress’s power to regulate Commerce was intended to allow Congress to enter the states and regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products within the various states. But the historical evidence, during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, establishes something far different regarding the power granted to Congress to regulate commerce. Let us look as some irrefutable facts.
A fundamental rule of constitutional law is, words contained in our Constitution carry the same meaning today as they did when the Constitution was framed and ratified. So, what was the meaning of “commerce” to those who framed and ratified our Constitution?
The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution was synonymous with “trade” ___ the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B.
The delegated power over commerce as intended by our founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with a policing power over the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of goods, wares, or merchandise, nor a policing power over the cultivation of agricultural products or their use. As a mater of fact it is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be surrendering a policing power to Congress allowing Congress to henceforth enter the states to dictate the regulation of a state’s manufacturing industry, or regulate its agricultural industry, or was given the dictatorial powers as described in The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1256 )
As we shall see, Congress was given the power to regulate commerce for a very narrow purpose ___ to insure free trade among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through a state.
Let us take a look at the historical intentions of those who granted the power in question. A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.
“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.”
Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers . . . to insure an uninhibited trade [movement of goods] among the states and nothing more!
As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:
“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.”
The power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders, and that is the limited power granted as established by the historical record!
Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area related to commerce __ oversight dealing with each state‘s inspection laws:
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
If our beloved RINOs were sincere about the health consequences connected with smoking, and obedient to our Constitution and the oath of office they took to support “this Constitution“, they would ask the people of the states via Article V of our Constitution for the desired power to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products, just as was done with regard to prohibition and “intoxicating liquors” by the 18th Amendment:
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Of course, this regulatory power was withdraw by the people when they adopted THE TWENTY FIRST AMENDMENT (http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html)
So which of our Republicans who VOTED YEA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-187) to authorize the exercise the stated powers over tobacco, is willing to point to and substantiate from the historical record that Congress is vested with the power to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products which they now intend to exercise?
Fact is, the majority of Republicans in Congress are nothing more than progressive democrats who cleverly work with democrats to seize powers not authorized by our written Constitution, and they thumb their nose at our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, our constitution’s plan. In short, they are low life and spineless cowards!
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=98&itemLink)