Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (677910)	4/1/2005 10:55:27 AM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 769670

I'm well aware of the home grown wheat case and the nexus to interstate commerce. I've also enjoyed the Lopez and Morrison cases in recent years. The Raich medical marijuana case and the Stewart homemade non-interstate machine gun cases are two more coming up. I read the text of the Schiavo bill. The bill doesn't cite which enumerated power Congress was using. The following is something I wrote with regards to the Stewart case and applying the Lopez-Morrison tests. The Feds have passing laws such as simple posession of items that didn't move in interstate commerce while in posession. The homegrown wheat case is a classic example. The first test is whether the act of possession is economic in nature. SCOTUS said that the act of possession of anything is not economic in nature, unless it can be proven there is an intent to sell or transfer the item. Possession alone does not prove this. 922(o) would have to say its illegal to possess with the intent to sell or transfer. 922(o) does not say this. SCOTUS said a further proof of whether or not possession is economic in nature is whether the possession has been defined as a criminal act, as 922(q) and 922(o) are. If its listed as a criminal act, that's further evidence that the possession is not an economic, trade or commerce related statute. SCOTUS said that if there is possession without an intent to sell or transfer, they would still sustain a nexus to interstate commerce, "where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce". How is this measured? 1. If 922(o) or 922(q) has/had an economic purpose which could have been evidenced by legislative findings established in Congressional Hearings or a jurisdictional anchor or hook, whereby Congress spells out what the Commerce Link is, that may not be obvious to see. 2. Is the link between possession's effect on commerce attenuated? Its attenuated if there is no evidence of a sale or transfer. No evidence of a sale or transfer is a proof that the activity is NOT economic in nature. The statute is a criminal statute. A criminal statute shows possession's effect on commerce is attenuated. 3. Does the statute exceed Congress's enumerated Powers? The Supreme Court said flat out that even if possession leads to violent crime and there were costs of crime or costs to national productivity from that violent crime that this still does not give Congress the power to regulate possession because any activity leading to crime could then be regulated by Congress. Congress has specific enumerated powers, not unlimited powers.