Commerce clause

[tangent4ronpaul]

apparently several dozen laws passed under the pretext of the commerce clause have been struck down by the supreme court. Any one know what they are?

The only one mentioned in particular was US vs Lopez in '95 - the gun free school zone, (news to me!) WooHoo! but Diane Feinstein listed off a a bunch of categories that the federal government nanny state likes to impose laws about on us, and expressed concern that they wouldn't be able to make such laws if they would be struck down.

Getting rid of the commerce clause would be a GREAT amendment to the constitution! - that would solve 99% of our problems with the federal government right there!

-t

[Terces]

Any sources?

Where did you hear about this?

[erowe1]

apparently several dozen laws passed under the pretext of the commerce clause have been struck down by the supreme court. Any one know what they are?

The only one mentioned in particular was US vs Lopez in '95 - the gun free school zone, (news to me!) WooHoo! but Diane Feinstein listed off a a bunch of categories that the federal government nanny state likes to impose laws about on us, and expressed concern that they wouldn't be able to make such laws if they would be struck down.

Getting rid of the commerce clause would be a GREAT amendment to the constitution! - that would solve 99% of our problems with the federal government right there!

-t

Of course getting rid of the commerce clause wouldn't actually do anything. You don't think Congress would suddenly begin to restrict itself to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, do you?

That's like the people who think we would get rid of the income tax if we just repealed the 16th amendment.

[__27__]

Of course getting rid of the commerce clause wouldn't actually do anything. You don't think Congress would suddenly begin to restrict itself to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, do you?

That's like the people who think we would get rid of the income tax if we just repealed the 16th amendment.

"...general welfare..."

[acptulsa]

And yet it's the Commerce Clause, possibly more than anything else, that helps the U.S. maintain its great economic strength. If each state negotiated treaties seperately and enacted state-to-state tariffs, we'd be no better economically than, say, Europe.

Not that Europe's 'good neighborhoods' aren't just as good as ours. It's just that their 'bad neighborhoods' are worse than ours. Plus, they frittered away their global dominance just as we got badass enough to pick up the pieces. Not all good, but no bad thing to be powerful enough that your worst problem is your own mistakes.

United we stand. Divided we fall. Works in free markets, too.


"...general welfare..."

...meant something completely different back when payments to the destitute were called 'relief'. Promoting (not guaranteeing) the general condition of the people is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

[ChaosControl]

The actual commerce clause is such that it is allowed to make laws to make commerce regular, to prevent states not trading and allowing the free flow of commerce between states.

It practice it has been used for the opposite, to limit trade and commerce between the states.

We don't need an amendment to rid the commerce clause as the true meaning of it is fine, I'd be fine with an amendment that spelled out in detail exactly what the founders meant by the commerce clause, and while we're at it the general welfare clause as well.

[__27__]

Back on topic a bit, I think we'd actually make some decent headway if we repealed the 17th, and removed the cap on HoR members. Do you think ACES or TARP or PATRIOT would have been pushed through like they were if there were 5,000+ members in the HoR and the Senators were directly responsible to their states?

I'm not saying it'd be perfect, far from it, but if I could make 2 changes, those would be my first.

[fisharmor]

And yet it's the Commerce Clause, possibly more than anything else, that helps the U.S. maintain its great economic strength. If each state negotiated treaties seperately and enacted state-to-state tariffs, we'd be no better economically than, say, Europe.

Not that Europe's 'good neighborhoods' aren't just as good as ours. It's just that their 'bad neighborhoods' are worse than ours. Plus, they frittered away their global dominance just as we got badass enough to pick up the pieces. Not all good, but no bad thing to be powerful enough that your worst problem is your own mistakes.

United we stand. Divided we fall. Works in free markets, too.

Your fundamental assumption here is that treaties and tariffs are what make commerce happen, and that more universal and all-encompassing treaties and tariffs are what make us more prosperous than Europe.

I'll simply state that I emphatically disagree.

Were you to argue the merits of the commerce clause as manifested by, for instance, the UCC, I'd agree with you, since that is regulation as you define it later. But I submit that we are actually worse off for having treaties and tariffs, regardless of who creates and enforces them.


It practice it has been used for the opposite, to limit trade and commerce between the states.

We don't need an amendment to rid the commerce clause as the true meaning of it is fine

I agree, provided we can start teaching some grade school level vocabulary. A simple trip to dictionary.com's page for "among" clears it all right up.

There is no definition of "among" which is synonymous with "within". It pretty much always means "in the space between objects". In this case, the objects are states.

[acptulsa]

Your fundamental assumption here is that treaties and tariffs are what make commerce happen, and that more universal and all-encompassing treaties and tariffs are what make us more prosperous than Europe.

Au contraire. My fundamental assumption is the fact that Europe's states draw up treaties to 'facilitate' trade betwixt them and our states refrain from drawing up treaties betwixt them (which actually does facilitate trade) is a big part of why we're more prosperous than Europe.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Any sources?

Where did you hear about this?

C-SPAN - the approval hearing for the new supreme court judge

-t

[acptulsa]

The fact that some use guns to do evil things is no excuse for gun control.

The fact that some try to use the commerce clause as a pretext to pass evil legislation is not honestly much of a reflection on the commerce clause. It does, imo, do good things.

[Matt Collins]

The actual commerce clause is such that it is allowed to make laws to make commerce regular, to prevent states not trading and allowing the free flow of commerce between states.I concur. Can you back that up with some links? :confused: