"Ron Paul is clueless on foreign policy"

[Matt Collins]

From a local radio show host in Nashville after posting this video to his Facebook Wall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07pfforz978



"MATT THIS GUY IS CLUELESS ON FOREIGN POLICY!!!! That's all you proved with this post. Again, domestically, I agree with him, but his "bury your head in the sand" and butt out foreign policy is reckless and ignorant of human history. Is this what this idiot would have been saying during Nazi Germany's crusade to conquer the world??? What does this interview show...and ignorant of the enemy, ignorant of history, ignorant of national security..>EMPTY SUIT! "Just leave...never should have been there….it’s no different than the Shaw in Iran..." WOW, so profound! When asked in Iran how the fall of the Shaw ended up with something worse...can that happen here (in Egypt)?? “OH YES, but we should just butt out....” Then back to stop spending. Finally, MATT, LISTEN CLOSELY: I find Dr. Paul irrelevant! I do NOT live, nor do I broadcast in Texas. Nor are any of my face book friends from his district. He is NOT running for President…and I am NOT, NOR EVER WILL BE, A SUPPORTER. I assume you think it’s appropriate to keep selling this failed product on my wall…well, it's not....and STOP IT. Last warning…or I will de-friend you. If you have a mission…great, just find a new theater of operation. Perhaps get your OWN show, own listeners and own friends, BUT STAY AWAY FROM MINE! LAST WARNING!!!!"

[Pericles]

WRT Nazi Germany the US did exactly nothing until Germany declared war on the US in December 1941. So what is the guy's point?:collins:

[erowe1]

Has Ron Paul ever said that he was against the US fighting in WW2? That seems to be the only example anyone ever brings up as what they think disproves noninterventionism. And it's not a very good example, since we were attacked. Whether we here think it was right to enter the war or not, it's surely not as straight forward of a case as most other wars the US has been in. Why don't these people ever use as their example that RP's policies would have kept us out of Vietnam?

[Chester Copperpot]

whos this guy?


id like to post on his facebook wall now

[Original_Intent]

I find it funny that he claims Ron Paul to be ignorant of history regarding the "Shaw" of Iran - he clearly is the one who is clueless about history, all he sees is that the Shah was followed by something worse and then "OH YES!!! The same can happen in Egypt! NO kidding dipshit, maybe look into the history of Iran prior to the Shah, and maybe the parallels and the repeated mistakes BY US is practically forcing history to repeat itself. But no all he sees is Shah followed by Ayatollah, therefore Mubarak will be followed by (SOMEONE REALLY BAD)!!! Likely not incorrect, but just amazing that he acuses Ron Paul and yourself of being clueless of history, when in fact he clearly doesn;t understand why history repeats itself!

[Sola_Fide]

+:collins:

[robert68]

On part of Judge Napolitano’s remarks about what happened in Iran, after the Shah fell. After the Shah fell, the US did the counterproductive thing it usually does it such situations, it froze all Iranian assets in the US, and ended all trade and diplomatic relations with Iran.

[JK/SEA]

Last warning…or I will de-friend you. .....c'mon Matt, you don't even know me, and i'm already a better friend to you than this clown....hahaha

[Wren]

STOP IT. Last warning…or I will de-friend you.

Facebook is srs business

[nobody's_hero]

But the important question is, Matt, did you refuse this person a handshake at some point?

[Legend1104]

I hate it when they say that America staying out is bad and stupid. They never look at what caused these events. WWII was caused by the Actions of America and other countries intervening after world war 1. The shaw was placed in power by the U.S. which overthrew a farily moderate Iran to put in the shaw. Egypt's situation has been created by the actions of America. Just about every problem in modern American history were caused by America. Even the cold war was made cold in large part due to the U.S.'s refussal to talk with the Soviets.

[Grubb556]

Just look at Switzerland, they don't intervene in everyone else's affairs, nobdy ever invades them, and for the most part probably every country in the world more or less likes Switzerland.

[devil21]

LOL. You can always tell when someone is just regurgitating things they heard from other people when they spell words (incorrectly) how they sound instead of how they are actually spelled.

"Shaw"

Is that guy military? I respect people whose opinions differ from mine if they come to that conclusion after fact based critical thinking. Im fine with that. I can't stand idiots that paraphrase the latest Hannity broadcast!

[oyarde]

WRT Nazi Germany the US did exactly nothing until Germany declared war on the US in December 1941. So what is the guy's point?:collins:

Yep , a mistake for them.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I hate it when they say that America staying out is bad and stupid. They never look at what caused these events. WWII was caused by the Actions of America and other countries intervening after world war 1. The shaw was placed in power by the U.S. which overthrew a farily moderate Iran to put in the shaw. Egypt's situation has been created by the actions of America. Just about every problem in modern American history were caused by America. Even the cold war was made cold in large part due to the U.S.'s refussal to talk with the Soviets.

Agreed. Our actions with Japan in the 20's and even before that probably contributed to Pearl Harbor. Even though it was a reprehensible attack, I can understand the Japanese pent-up frustration.

[Koz]

Just look at Switzerland, they don't intervene in everyone else's affairs, nobdy ever invades them, and for the most part probably every country in the world more or less likes Switzerland.

Yeah, but they make really nice watches and fantastic chocolate. Why would anyone hate that?

[cindy25]

WWII was not necessary for the USA; it was not even necessary for the UK (which lost their empire as a result)

[Lord Xar]

Better than even odds his last name is something like "..stein", "..berg"..."...kin"

[driller80545]

Shit, we are gonna have to dig deep to get this guy's vote!

[Matt Collins]

Better than even odds his last name is something like "..stein", "..berg"..."...kin"
No, but he is a hardcore Israel firster.

[heavenlyboy34]

Has Ron Paul ever said that he was against the US fighting in WW2? That seems to be the only example anyone ever brings up as what they think disproves noninterventionism. And it's not a very good example, since we were attacked. Whether we here think it was right to enter the war or not, it's surely not as straight forward of a case as most other wars the US has been in. Why don't these people ever use as their example that RP's policies would have kept us out of Vietnam?

You mean Pearl Harbor? That wasn't just an attack-it was blowback, my friend. Aside from that, it (WWII) is in fact a very good example. It was an absolutely unnecessary war. :P

[AtomiC]

Its hard to take guys like this seriously.

[BlackTerrel]

I find it funny that he claims Ron Paul to be ignorant of history regarding the "Shaw" of Iran - he clearly is the one who is clueless about history,

Haha - was thinking the same thing.

[Southron]

So Ron Paul is clueless about foreign policy as compared to the geniuses in charge who can't win a "war" against 3rd world countries in less than a decade?

[Pericles]

You mean Pearl Harbor? That wasn't just an attack-it was blowback, my friend. Aside from that, it (WWII) is in fact a very good example. It was an absolutely unnecessary war. :P
So by refusing to supply Japan with goods useful to pursue their aggression against China, we deserved to get bombed at Pearl Harbor?

[HOLLYWOOD]

No, but he is a hardcore Israel firster.

Tonight on FOX BUSINESS' "FOLLOW THE MONEY" another FAUX NEWS/Israeli Firster (Eric Bolling) interviewed Michael Scheuer... AGAIN. Man did Scheuer hit a home run!

Boiling tried to play the fear, terror, safety, Israel is our savior nonsense. Scheuer put him in his place. Of Course after the interview with Scheuer was over, the Israeli so-called expert backers are given free will to attack Scheuer. Everything your Nashville boy at the radio station barked... is exactly what the Israeli Neocon expert said tonight on FOX.

I've gotta get a YouTube of that exchange from "Follow The Money"... the canned propaganda to manipulate the public is on Full Throttle.

[Dreamofunity]

Why'd you post it on his wall, instead of in your feed which he could see if he wanted?

[angelatc]

I'm guessing it was Tim Gamble. He mentioned it on Twitter. I didn't realize he was a radio guy. I've had a couple of go-rounds with him. I'll have to ramp my game up a little!

Or it could be that the Shah - Shaw thing was just a coincidence and I've got the wrong guy, since Google isn't giving me any hits.

[TomtheTinker]

whats this guys facebook link?

[libertarian4321]

So by refusing to supply Japan with goods useful to pursue their aggression against China, we deserved to get bombed at Pearl Harbor?

I think some on this forum are so eager to show that our overseas actions sometimes result in negative blowback that they completely forget that other countries do bad things, too.

Japan was not an innocent bystander "done wrong" by the USA, they were an extremely militaristic and aggressive nation that had been committing evil long before our embargo- in fact, our embargo was a reaction to Japanese aggression in China.

Some of you folks need to do a little reading about the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937-1945 (focus on the MANY massacres they committed in China, the most famous being the "Rape of Nanking") before you weep too many crocodile tears for the "frustration" of the Japanese.

[xd9fan]

ok Matt.....its David Webb;)

[juvanya]

WRT Nazi Germany the US did exactly nothing until Germany declared war on the US in December 1941. So what is the guy's point?:collins:

And even then they still did nothing.

[Knightskye]

Those danged Iranian shawls.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

So by refusing to supply Japan with goods useful to pursue their aggression against China, we deserved to get bombed at Pearl Harbor?

Might I suggest researching Project Black Chamber? That is just one major example of how we screwed over the Japanese and enraged them to the point they would want to go to war with us.

[Matt Collins]

Japan was not an innocent bystander "done wrong" by the USA, they were an extremely militaristic and aggressive nation that had been committing evil long before our embargo- in fact, our embargo was a reaction to Japanese aggression in China.

Some of you folks need to do a little reading about the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937-1945 (focus on the MANY massacres they committed in China, the most famous being the "Rape of Nanking") before you weep too many crocodile tears for the "frustration" of the Japanese.And where does the US Constitution give the authority to the federal government to embargo their island because of this? :confused: :rolleyes:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Might I suggest researching Project Black Chamber? That is just one major example of how we screwed over the Japanese and enraged them to the point they would want to go to war with us.

Funny (not haha, but WTF?) Japan was our ALLY during World War One.

[Matt Collins]

Here is my reply:



Mike,

Great of you to respond to my post in an intelligent, thoughtful, and rational manner without being insulting or calling names the way that children do.

If you study your history, you'll realize that Hitler would not have come to power and thus there would have been no WWII if the United States government did not force us unto WWI. WWI was largely a stalemate at the time of our government's entry into it thus giving the allied side the advantage. This caused and allowed the screws to be put to the German people who were desperate for any sort of "savior" after the Great War and also the inflation of their currency during the Weimar Republic. Japan also would not have attacked Hawaii if our government had not perpetuated an act of war against the Japs by blockading their island. Cause and effect, otherwise known as "blowback". If our government had followed the Constitution and not allowed itself to be dragged into war by the liberal progressive President Wilson, then there would not have been a WWII.

Regarding Iran, are you referring to the "Shah"? Again, that is another case of the US federal government illegally and immorally intervening in the internal affairs of foreign nations. Is it any wonder why they hold America in such contempt? Have you ever read OBL's stated reasons for attacking us? Interestingly Switzerland, who is neutral, is rarely if ever attacked. The United States receives blowback from radicals because of our government's unwillingness to mind its business abroad and follow the Constitution.

If you think Ron Paul is irrelevant then you are blind to the current political atmosphere. He is a national figure in modern American politics. This is proven by the fact that his son was just elected to the US Senate in KY (which I had a very large hand in by the way) and is being talked about as possibly being a VP candidate. This is further proven by the fact that many of Ron's supporters who have become candidates have achieved or nearly achieved election to public office at all levels of government. This is also proven by the fact that many Republican parties across the nation, and especially in TN, are being directly influenced by Ron Paul supporters. And, indicators are that Ron will most likely launch another bid for the Republican nomination within the next few months. This is not to mention that over the last 2 years he has had more face time on TV than any other member of Congress, and more one-on-one interviews than the President. His actions and the actions of those who are like-minded will indeed be a significant force-vector on American politics for the foreseeable future. I would hardly call that a "failed" product seeing as he is currently more influential than any other Republican that ran in the 2008 Primary race.

Regarding posting on your wall, since you have asked me not to do so any further I will respect that. However I thought that maybe perhaps there could possibly be rational and intelligent dialog with adult conversations about ideas and policies.

Guess I was wrong...

[erowe1]

And where does the US Constitution give the authority to the federal government to embargo their island because of this? :confused: :rolleyes:

I agree that we could have and should have stayed out of WW2. And I agree that Pearl Harbor could have been avoided. I was just saying that, despite all that, Pearl Harbor did happen, and WW2 is not a good example of a war that a noninterventionist would have to oppose. I have never heard RP say that we shouldn't have been in WW2. I have heard him say that we shouldn't have been in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Yet every time I hear people criticize noninterventionism, WW2 is the example they use, without any respect for that point.

[Matt Collins]

I have never heard RP say that we shouldn't have been in WW2. I have heard him say that we shouldn't have been in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Yet every time I hear people criticize noninterventionism, WW2 is the example they use, without any respect for that point.In "Manifesto" Ron clearly suggests that WWII would not have happened (or at least Hitler wouldn't have risen to power when he did) without our intervention in WWII.

[Pericles]

And where does the US Constitution give the authority to the federal government to embargo their island because of this? :confused: :rolleyes:
Article I Section 8

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Maybe Japan is not a foreign nation in your world?

That post is surely worth :collins::collins::collins::collins::collins:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Article I Section 8

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Maybe Japan is not a foreign nation in your world?

:rolleyes:

Regulate = To Make Regular.

[Pericles]

:rolleyes:

Regulate = To Make Regular.

Embargo Act of 1807

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Embargo Act of 1807

'The Acts were diplomatic responses by presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison designed to protect American interests and avoid war. They failed, and helped cause the war.'

[Pericles]

'The Acts were diplomatic responses by presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison designed to protect American interests and avoid war. They failed, and helped cause the war.'
Nowhere in the Wikipedia article you quoted is there any suggestion that the act was contrary to the constitution, and was a series of measures taken due to interference in US shipping by Great Britain.

What we refer to as the War of 1812 is regarded in Europe as an intervention in the Napoleonic Wars.

Point being that Congress does have the authority to restrict trade with foreign nations.

[Pauls' Revere]

Enlighten him about Operation Ajax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

[fisharmor]

Yo, WWII pacific theater aplogists... read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_Japan

We forget about the outrageous shit we do because it's not happening to us.
When it happens to you, you don't forget about it.

Japan was closed off to the world for 200 years. They were quite happy not interacting with anyone and minding their own business.
Their forced introduction to the modern world was also their introduction to modern diplomacy.
"I have lots of guns, now do what I want or I'll shoot you."

At Pearl Harbor, Japan simply applied the lessons that we taught them.

[Pericles]

Yo, WWII pacific theater aplogists... read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_Japan

We forget about the outrageous shit we do because it's not happening to us.
When it happens to you, you don't forget about it.

Japan was closed off to the world for 200 years. They were quite happy not interacting with anyone and minding their own business.
Their forced introduction to the modern world was also their introduction to modern diplomacy.
"I have lots of guns, now do what I want or I'll shoot you."

At Pearl Harbor, Japan simply applied the lessons that we taught them.
And they learned those lessons well.

[Matt Collins]

Embargo Act of 1807
Thomas Jefferson was a great man, but not infallible. He made two big unconstitutional moves as President, this was one of them, the Louisiana Purchase was the other.

And just because a Founding Father did it doesn't make it Constitutional. They too can be guilty of violating the very words they helped write.

[Matt Collins]

Nowhere in the Wikipedia article you quoted is there any suggestion that the act was contrary to the constitution, and was a series of measures taken due to interference in US shipping by Great Britain.

Point being that Congress does have the authority to restrict trade with foreign nations.The power to making trade regular is not the same as the power to restrict trade.

[Pericles]

The power to making trade regular is not the same as the power to restrict trade.
Although a fan, the Judge is not immune from error either. "make regular" is not an accurate definition.

Put in order
Function accurately

are the lessor used but correct definitions appropriate for regulate in this sense. Make regular isn't.

[Matt Collins]

Although a fan, the Judge is not immune from error either. "make regular" is not an accurate definition.

Put in order
Function accurately

are the lessor used but correct definitions appropriate for regulate in this sense. Make regular isn't.Even if you are right:

put [trade] in order |= restrict trade
[have trade] function accurately |= restrict trade

The Constitution does NOT give the feds the authority to restrict trade in any way under that clause.

[Pericles]

The authors knew how to use English, if they meant to promote commerce, they would have said promote as in:
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;

or insure commerce

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,

[Danke]

"Act of war." Ron Paul.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoGwq9k5lw&feature=player_embedded

[heavenlyboy34]

Yo, WWII pacific theater aplogists... read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_Japan

We forget about the outrageous shit we do because it's not happening to us.
When it happens to you, you don't forget about it.

Japan was closed off to the world for 200 years. They were quite happy not interacting with anyone and minding their own business.
Their forced introduction to the modern world was also their introduction to modern diplomacy.
"I have lots of guns, now do what I want or I'll shoot you."

At Pearl Harbor, Japan simply applied the lessons that we taught them.
qft!!!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

Although a fan, the Judge is not immune from error either. "make regular" is not an accurate definition.

Put in order
Function accurately

are the lessor used but correct definitions appropriate for regulate in this sense. Make regular isn't.

The Collins is right on this one, and you are wrong. See Cooley v Board of Wardens (1851), Baldwin v G. A. F. Seelig (1935), H. P. Hood and Sons v Dumond (1949), Dean Milk Co. v Madison (1951), Edwards v California (1941), Philadelphia v New Jersey (1976), Hughes v Oklahoma (1979), Maine v Taylor (1986), Hunt v Washington State Apple Ass'n (1977), and So. Pacific Co. v Arizona (1945).

Here's some more detailed info from the Free Legal Dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause+of+the+United+States+Constitution) .

Power to Regulate

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation.
Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment). A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers. States are powerless to regulate commerce with Indian tribes.
Although Congress has the exclusive power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, the presence or absence of congressional action determines whether a state may act in a particular field. The nature of the subject of commerce must be examined in order to decide whether Congress has exclusive control over it. If the subject is national in character and importance, thereby requiring uniform regulation, the power of Congress to regulate it is plenary, or exclusive.
It is for the courts to decide the national or local character of the subject of regulation, by Balancing (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Balancing) the national interest against the State Interest (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest) in the subject. If the state interest is slight compared with the national interest, the courts will declare the state statute unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945), held that an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads within the state from having more than 70 cars in a freight train, or 14 cars in a passenger train, was unconstitutional. The purpose of the legislation, deemed a safety measure, was to minimize accidents by reducing the lengths of trains passing through the state. Practically speaking, however, the statute created an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, as trains entering and leaving the state had to stop at the borders to break up a 100-car freight train into two trains and to put on additional crews, thus increasing their operating costs. The Court held that the means used to achieve safety was unrealistic and that the increase in the number of trains and train operators actually enhanced the likelihood of accidents. It balanced the national interest in the free flow of interstate commerce by a national railway system, against the state interest of a dubious safety measure. It decided that the value of the operation of a uniform, efficient railway system significantly outweighed that of a state law that has minimal effect.
However, where there is an obvious compelling state interest to protect, state regulations are constitutional. Restrictions on the width and weight of trucks passing through a state on its highways are valid, because the state, pursuant to its police power, has a legitimate interest in protecting its roads.
Where the subject is one in which Congress or the state may act, a state may legislate unless Congress does so. Thereafter, a valid federal regulation of the subject supersedes conflicting state legislative enactments and decisions and actions of state judicial or administrative bodies.
If Congress has clearly demonstrated its intent to regulate the entire field, then the state is powerless to enact subsequent legislation even if no conflict exists between state and federal law. This type of congressional action is known as federal Preemption (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preemption) of the field. Extensive federal regulation in a particular area does not necessarily result in federal preemption of the field. In determining whether a state may regulate a given field, a court evaluates the purpose of the federal regulations and the obligations imposed, the history of state regulation in the field, and the Legislative History (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legislative+History) of the state statute. If Congress has not preempted the field, then state law is valid, provided that it is consistent with, or supplements, the federal law.
State health, sanitary, and quarantine laws that interfere with foreign and interstate commerce no more than is necessary in the proper exercise of the state's police power are also valid as long as they do not conflict with federal regulations on the subject. Such laws must have some real relation to the objects named in them, in order to be upheld as valid exercises of the police power of the state. A state may not go beyond what is essential for self-protection by interfering with interstate transportation into or through its territory.
A state may not burden interstate commerce by discriminating against it or persons engaged in it or the citizens or property originating in another state. However, the regulation of interstate commerce need not be uniform throughout the United States. Congress may devise a national policy with due regard for varying and fluctuating interests of different regions.
Acts Constituting Commerce

Whether any transaction constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce depends on the essential character of what is done and the surrounding circumstances. The courts take a commonsense approach in examining the established course of business in order to distinguish where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins. If activities that are intrastate in character have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect commerce from being burdened, Congress may not be denied the power to exercise that control.
In 1995, for the first time in nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995), the Court ruled 5–4 that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C.A. § 921), which prohibited the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.
In reaching its decision, the Court took the various tests used throughout the history of the Commerce Clause to determine whether a federal statute is constitutional, and incorporated them into a new standard that specifies three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the clause: (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) persons or things in interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) activities that have "a substantial relation to interstate commerce … i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." The Court then applied this new standard to the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act and found that the statute could be evaluated under the third category of legislation allowed by the Commerce Clause. But the Court noted that the act was a criminal statute that had nothing to do with commerce and that it did not establish any jurisdictional authority to distinguish it from similar state regulations. Because the statute did not "substantially affect interstate commerce," according to the Court, it went beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause and was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's legislative power.
The Court stressed that federal authority to regulate interstate commerce cannot be extended to the point that it obliterates the distinction between what is national and what is local and creates a completely centralized government. Although recognizing the great breadth of congressional regulatory authority, the Court in Lopez attempted to create a special protection for the states by providing for heightened scrutiny of federal legislation that regulates areas of traditional concern to the states.
In a novel application of the Commerce Clause, a federal court decided in United States v. Bishop Processing Co., 287 F. Supp. 624 (D.C. Md. 1968), that the movement of Air Pollution (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Air+Pollution) across state lines from Maryland to Delaware constituted interstate commerce that is subject to congressional regulation. The plaintiff, the United States, sought an Injunction (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Injunction) under the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7401 et seq. [1955]) to prevent the operation of the Maryland Bishop Processing Company, a fat-rendering plant, until it installed devices to eliminate its emission of noxious odors. The defendant plant owners argued, among other contentions, that Congress was powerless to regulate their business because it was clearly an intrastate activity. The court disagreed. Foul-smelling air Pollution (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pollution) adversely affects business conditions, depresses property values, and impedes industrial development. These factors interfere with interstate commerce, thereby bringing the plant within the scope of the provisions of the federal air-pollution law.
The power of Congress to regulate commerce also extends to contracts that substantially relate to interstate commerce. For example, Congress may regulate the rights and liabilities of employers and employees, as labor disputes adversely affect the free flow of commerce. Otherwise, contracts that do not involve any property or activities that move in interstate commerce are not ordinarily part of interstate commerce.
Congress acts within its power when it regulates transportation across state lines. The essential nature of the transportation determines its character. Transportation that begins and ends within a single state is intrastate commerce and is generally not within the scope of the Commerce Clause. If part of the journey passes through an adjoining state, then the transportation is interstate commerce, as long as the travel across state lines is not done solely to avoid state regulation. Commerce begins with the physical transport of the product or person and ends when either reaches the destination. Every aspect of a continuous passage from a point in one state to a point in another state is a transaction of interstate commerce. A temporary pause in transportation does not automatically deprive a shipment of its interstate character. For a sale of goods to constitute interstate commerce, interstate transportation must be involved. Once goods have arrived in one state from another state, their local sale is not interstate commerce.
Interstate commerce also includes the transmission of intelligence and information—whether by telephone, telegraph, radio, television, or mail—across state lines. The transmission of a message between points within the same state is subject to state regulation.

[anaconda]

The flak is always greatest when you're directly over the target...

[Pericles]

The Collins is right on this one, and you are wrong. .................... extraneous material deleted

It is you who are conflating the power delegated in Article I Section 8 with the restrictions of Article I Section 9 to wit:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.


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.

and the provisions of Article I Section 10:

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 Controul of the Congress.


No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


The Constitution means what is says, not what we might like for it to mean.

[robert68]

I agree that we could have and should have stayed out of WW2. And I agree that Pearl Harbor could have been avoided. I was just saying that, despite all that, Pearl Harbor did happen, and WW2 is not a good example of a war that a noninterventionist would have to oppose. I have never heard RP say that we shouldn't have been in WW2. I have heard him say that we shouldn't have been in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Yet every time I hear people criticize noninterventionism, WW2 is the example they use, without any respect for that point.


Lend-Lease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on 11 March 1941, ... before the U.S. entrance into the war in December 1941. It was called An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States. This act also ended the pretense of the neutrality of the United States.

And Pearl Harbor was an outpost of US empire anyway.