The limits of the Commerce power? [W:85, 130]

[Alan B.]

What are the substantive limitations to the commerce power and what is the basis to conclude such limitations?

 

[Medusa]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

honesty...

 

[Paschendale]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

If only there were online resources that had this exact information... And if only they were easily accessible, and both comprehensive and simplified enough to be understood by a layperson. Like an encyclopedia. Like an encyclopedia on the internet. If only we had one of those and it had an article on this exact subject and it only took about four seconds to find. Man, that would be cool.

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

If only there were online resources that had this exact information... And if only they were easily accessible, and both comprehensive and simplified enough to be understood by a layperson. Like an encyclopedia. Like an encyclopedia on the internet. If only we had one of those and it had an article on this exact subject and it only took about four seconds to find. Man, that would be cool.

If only it weren't up for debate as it is so much so that the highest court in the land is still hearing cases about it.

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Is it just me or are a lot of people on this forum purposely douche bags I mean if its not the libertarians you can count on the socialists. No wonder these two parties are so popular in American politics.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

The SCOTUS should not have to play referee to OBVIOUS attempts to make end runs around what is clearly stated by the U.S. constitution. A few examples follow:

1) The federal gov't has no constitutional power over education, NONE, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department is the DOEd. How much more clear can the 10th amendment be? The federal gov't MUST remain limitted to its narrow and listed (enumerated) powers or have the new power(s) added by constituional amendment. The endless expansion of 'perceived' or 'implied' federal powers simply by congressional slight of hand, coupled with bribes to the states (they now get about 10% of their annual budgets in the form of federal 'education aid') and the ignoring of the obvious infraction by the SCOTUS does not make it "right".

2) the 2nd amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", yet states may now SELL (rent?) "gun permits" or "CCW permits" for substantial fees and then prosecute ONLY those that exercise their constitutional right to bear arms WITHOUT first buying that express permission from the state. The state did not add rights or privileges of any kind, they simply chose to charge you money to keep that which is rightly yours to begin with. This is much the same as prior "poll taxes" made up to limit those which were legally able to vote, strangely this took a constitutional amendment (the 24th) to stop, not a mere SCOTUS decision that it was unconstitutional to begin with, as was done with the voter "literacy tests" that followed.

3) If the gov't wishes to make "health insurance" into a federal right (or power), then it must do so directly, just as with social security by levying a tax, establishing 'benefit' rules and then paying them using gov't funds, or as with Medicare/Medicaid by direct action using gov't funds, not by making all sorts of unfunded mandates and producing a massive 2,400+ page mess, supported by 187 new agencies and panels and pretending them (as it was sold to the public) to be simply (minor?) revisions to an existing private health insurance system, made under the commerce clause. Adding thousands of moronic "waivers" (to the initial law), some at the entire state level, should also be found unconstitutional as violating the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Is it just me or are a lot of people on this forum purposely douche bags I mean if its not the libertarians you can count on the socialists. No wonder these two parties are so popular in American politics.

LOL. Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Pehraps responding, as I am now doing, to the 'questionable' post, is better than defaming a class of posters, by using their self imposed political 'lean' labels, is in order, rather than a general rant. ;-)

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

The SCOTUS should not have to play referee to OBVIOUS attempts to make end runs around what is clearly stated by the U.S. constitution. A few examples follow:

1) The federal gov't has no constitutional power over education, NONE, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department is the DOEd. How much more clear can the 10th amendment be? The federal gov't MUST remain limitted to its narrow and listed (enumerated) powers or have the new power(s) added by constituional amendment. The endless expansion of 'perceived' or 'implied' federal powers simply by congressional slight of hand, coupled with bribes to the states (they now get about 10% of their annual budgets in the form of federal 'education aid') and the ignoring of the obvious infraction by the SCOTUS does not make it "right".

2) the 2nd amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", yet states may now SELL (rent?) "gun permits" or "CCW permits" for substantial fees and then prosecute ONLY those that exercise their constitutional right to bear arms WITHOUT first buying that express permission from the state. The state did not add rights or privileges of any kind, they simply chose to charge you money to keep that which is rightly yours to begin with. This is much the same as prior "poll taxes" made up to limit those which were legally able to vote, strangely this took a constitutional amendment (the 24th) to stop, not a mere SCOTUS decision that it was unconstitutional to begin with, as was done with the voter "literacy tests" that followed.

3) If the gov't wishes to make "health insurance" into a federal right (or power), then it must do so directly, just as with social security by levying a tax, establishing 'benefit' rules and then paying them using gov't funds, or as with Medicare/Medicaid by direct action using gov't funds, not by making all sorts of unfunded mandates and producing a massive 2,400+ page mess, supported by 187 new agencies and panels and pretending them (as it was sold to the public) to be simply (minor?) revisions to an existing private health insurance system, made under the commerce clause. Adding thousands of moronic "waivers" (to the initial law), some at the entire state level, should also be found unconstitutional as violating the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment.

Could you give me an example of a valid exercise of the commerce power whether it be a real law or something you make up. Why should the government be inclined to regulate health insurance similarly to the means pursued in Social security and Medicare? Also are you saying Infringed means that guns even if in the stream of commerce cannot be regulated.

 

[Meathead]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Seems like an economics classroom question.

Is this an on-line class?

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Not at all I just want to get a concept of how he feels the power applies. Its a Constitutional forum thus I begged a constitutional question. Keep searching though Devry should only be a few sites down.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

I think what the OP is trying to get out is what are the various views about the commerce clause and what are the merits of these various views.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

What are the substantive limitations to the commerce power and what is the basis to conclude such limitations?

I don't think that it describes on intimates any limitations.

 

[Henrin]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

The intent of the commerce clause was to settle trade disputes between the members listed.

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

The intent of the commerce clause was to settle trade disputes between the members listed.

By placing control of national and international commerce in the hands of congress

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

By placing control of national and international commerce in the hands of congress

not the same thing as giving congress an almost unlimited power to regulate every item or the use of every item that travelled in interstate commerce

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

By placing control of national and international commerce in the hands of congress

Not "control." That's utterly totalitarian.

The power to make "regular."

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

I don't think that it describes on intimates any limitations.

So, if it outlawed unions, I guess you'd have to say it's within their power.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

I don't think that it describes on intimates any limitations.

well that clearly shows how little you understand the constitution and the premise upon which it was founded-that premise being that the federal government was one of limited powers -having only the specific enunciated powers clearly delegated to it

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Not "control." That's utterly totalitarian.

The power to make "regular."

Yes exactly what I mean is the clause hands the authority to prescribe the rule by which national and international commerce is governed to the central government

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

The SCOTUS should not have to play referee to OBVIOUS attempts to make end runs around what is clearly stated by the U.S. constitution. A few examples follow:

1) The federal gov't has no constitutional power over education, NONE, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department is the DOEd. How much more clear can the 10th amendment be? The federal gov't MUST remain limitted to its narrow and listed (enumerated) powers or have the new power(s) added by constituional amendment. The endless expansion of 'perceived' or 'implied' federal powers simply by congressional slight of hand, coupled with bribes to the states (they now get about 10% of their annual budgets in the form of federal 'education aid') and the ignoring of the obvious infraction by the SCOTUS does not make it "right".

Absolutely. The DOed should be shut down. Education is not a function of the federal government.

2) the 2nd amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", yet states may now SELL (rent?) "gun permits" or "CCW permits" for substantial fees and then prosecute ONLY those that exercise their constitutional right to bear arms WITHOUT first buying that express permission from the state. The state did not add rights or privileges of any kind, they simply chose to charge you money to keep that which is rightly yours to begin with. This is much the same as prior "poll taxes" made up to limit those which were legally able to vote, strangely this took a constitutional amendment (the 24th) to stop, not a mere SCOTUS decision that it was unconstitutional to begin with, as was done with the voter "literacy tests" that followed.

There is no easy answer to the issue of arms control. Obviously, we don't want Joe Redneck to be shooting off RPGs. On the other hand, what you're describing is simply revenue enhancement on the part of the states.

) If the gov't wishes to make "health insurance" into a federal right (or power), then it must do so directly, just as with social security by levying a tax, establishing 'benefit' rules and then paying them using gov't funds, or as with Medicare/Medicaid by direct action using gov't funds, not by making all sorts of unfunded mandates and producing a massive 2,400+ page mess, supported by 187 new agencies and panels and pretending them (as it was sold to the public) to be simply (minor?) revisions to an existing private health insurance system, made under the commerce clause. Adding thousands of moronic "waivers" (to the initial law), some at the entire state level, should also be found unconstitutional as violating the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment.

that's exactly how it should be done, but the same people who ranted about death panels and offing Grandma would leap and hoot about "socialism" were such a plan to be discussed. We have a serious problem with health care in this country, one than needs to be addressed, but we also have a dysfunctional Congress than couldn't deal with gum on the sidewalk.

Add to the above:

The war on drugs. Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to regulate drugs?

Marriage, gay or otherwise: How is that an issue for the feds?

Asset forfeiture: Just when was it suddenly made OK to take private property without compensation and without due process?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Yes exactly what I mean is the clause hands the authority to prescribe the rule by which national and international commerce is governed to the central government

No, that's not what I said; you're describing something far more expansive.

 

[Alan B.]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

No, that's not what I said; you're describing something far more expansive.

Well give me an example of a valid exercise of the commerce power.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

So, if it outlawed unions, I guess you'd have to say it's within their power.

Employment and commerce have nothing to do with one another.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Employment and commerce have nothing to do with one another.

really? well the commerce clause is the justifying support for congress passing TITLE VII

you are wrong again

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Well give me an example of a valid exercise of the commerce power.

It's been said quite a few times already -- keeping states from erecting trade barriers against each other.