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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (39246)	12/4/2009 8:57:00 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Re: [A bloated 'Commerce Clause' courtesy of the post WW II U.S. Supreme Court] "Yes that's certainly what we have gotten, and the article you quote provides several good examples." Yes. I thought it was a nice article, helpful in pulling together some of the fairly esoteric legal points that most people have never heard of... and trying to ILLUSTRATE the way the bloated Court interpretation of the Commerce Clause UNDERPINS all of the massive bloat and power grab of the federal government in the post WW II era. The tentacles of this lead everywhere.... Re: "Having some effect on interstate commerce, doesn't mean that something is itself interstate commerce." I agree completely! These Supreme Court decisions are wrong, wrong, wrong. If we had any truly 'conservative' Justices on the Court, (instead of simply different flavors of Big Government enablers...) they WOULD NOT HESITATE to over-turn these wrongful precedents.

To: TimF who wrote (39246)	3/31/2010 3:24:34 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The Commerce Clause and the Need for a Good Dictionary Posted by a_t_cher Wednesday, March 31st at 12:04AM EDT “The Commerce Clause” is one of the most talked about topics in American politics today because it is being used as the justification for healthcare “reform” and so many other intrusions of the Congress into the lives of the American people. It is clear that this clause should be investigated within the historical and Constitutional framework that it was created. So what is this clause and what does it mean for us? Quite simply, the clause states that Congress shall have the power “t regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). The key word in the clause is obviously the verb “regulate” and while so many Constitutional lawyers have been debating the term, I wonder why more haven’t simply picked up a dictionary. Dictionary.com gives the following meanings for the term “regulate”: –verb (used with object),-lat·ed, -lat·ing. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. It is the first definition that the power hungry Congressmen use to justify their agendas, but it is clear that the Founders of the Constitution - who wrote the Constitution after much debate - meant to use the other definitions that really means “to put in good order”, “to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operations” - simply “to make regular”. The Founders didn’t want one state to be deprived of trade with another and in essence, be deprived of the means of survival. The Founders wanted to make sure that the Federal Government insured the proper and even treatment of the states. To think otherwise is ignorant. Simply look at the debate that took place at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The delegates debated about the amount of power the Federal Government should have. There was a deep fear about giving the Federal Government too much power and in the end, returning to the tyranny of government they fought and died to escape. If you are still unconvinced, look at the rest of the Constitution - especially Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution that lists limits that bind Congress. Do you think it was just a coincidence that the Founders immediately listed limits after specifying the rights of Congress? Among other things, Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution states that “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.” You can see here that the idea of making commerce regular - even and just between the states - is a primary concern of the Founders and is the real meaning of the Commerce Clause. More over, it seems to me from this latest statement that the back room deals where Congressmen are bribed for the votes is clearly not Constitutional even if the Congressmen themselves are not rewarded. This is true no matter how much they say that the process is merely politics and the way things are done. I hope that my commentary on the subject clears up the Commerce Clause. I find the liberal use of it by the Liberals quite funny and intriguing since many - including President Obama - have said that the Constitution is a flawed document. It seems that there is at least one part of the Constitution that they like well enough to use it time and time again to justify their actions. It is just a shame that their basic understanding of the Constitution is flawed - not the document itself. Perhaps they should have just picked up a dictionary redstate.com