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

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Why are you here? You say "there is nothing left to say"; and then you come back! Not to take up the challenge of course but to attack what I say to someone else!

And, as usual, you fail to refer to your own cited source; which I used to prove you wrong again. And yet; actually true to form, you continue to perpetuate this myth of "limited government" based on nothing but you're opinionated assertion.

brilliant

man

Now, if can't keep the ad-hom out of your objections or assertions, then I'm going to relegate you to ignore. This need "to beat me" is getting way out of hand.

Who cares who you were saying it to? It's wrong and utterly asinine and I explained why. Nothing to say about that?

You have the most screwed-up view of the Constitution I have ever encountered, ever. I don't even know what to attribute it to, because this isn't the typical, left-wing, "living constitution" Laurence Tribe claptrap -- this just plain bat-guano-insane-alien-rays-from-outer-space moonbattery. You didn't learn any of this stuff from anyone else, because no one else on Earth says anything like it.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Who cares who you were saying it to? It's wrong and utterly asinine and I explained why. Nothing to say about that?

You have the most screwed-up view of the Constitution I have ever encountered, ever. I don't even know what to attribute it to, because this isn't the typical, left-wing, "living constitution" Laurence Tribe claptrap -- this just plain bat-guano-insane-alien-rays-from-outer-space moonbattery. You didn't learn any of this stuff from anyone else, because no one else on Earth says anything like it.

Okay, well, all you're going to is be rude, abusive and completely uninformed on the subject. You run from my challenges, you can't credibly refute my arguments, so we're done. I'm not going to relpy to you unitl you can change your behavior and actually be productive in a discussion.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Okay, well, all you're going to is be rude, abusive and completely uninformed on the subject. You run from my challenges, you can't credibly refute my arguments, so we're done. I'm not going to relpy to you unitl you can change your behavior and actually be productive in a discussion.

jet . . . you have been wrong about everything. Ev. Er. Y. Thing. Stubbornly refusing to accept it doesn't make you right, and these declarations of victory only make you look more pathetic to those who actually have a measure of competence.

There is apparently no one on the planet who can make you understand this. You're wrong. Everything you've ever said about the Constitution is wrong. Hilariously wrong. Saddeningly wrong. Pitiably wrong. There's no other way to say it. You do not know, at all, in any way, shape, or form, what you are talking about. You are oblivious to reason, to plain English, to anything which actually leads to any measure of understanding.

That is the God's honest truth.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Okay, well, all you're going to is be rude, abusive and completely uninformed on the subject. You run from my challenges, you can't credibly refute my arguments, so we're done. I'm not going to relpy to you unitl you can change your behavior and actually be productive in a discussion.

This post is awarded the Turtle Seal of Suck

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Okay, well, all you're going to is be rude, abusive and completely uninformed on the subject. You run from my challenges, you can't credibly refute my arguments, so we're done. I'm not going to relpy to you unitl you can change your behavior and actually be productive in a discussion.

This post is awarded the Turtle Seal of Suck


View attachment 67128572

Moderator's Warning:

Both of you cut it out, now.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

I have yet to hear of any limits imposed upon the Commerce Power. Lots of speculation of course. But so far I don't know of a single SCOTUS case that has stopped a piece of legislation based upon the Commerce Clause.

 

[jet57]

I have yet to hear of any limits imposed upon the Commerce Power. Lots of speculation of course. But so far I don't know of a single SCOTUS case that has stopped a piece of legislation based upon the Commerce Clause.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say all along. Such "limitations" do not exist and those who disagree with me have yet to prove that the government is limited.

 

[American]

I have yet to hear of any limits imposed upon the Commerce Power. Lots of speculation of course. But so far I don't know of a single SCOTUS case that has stopped a piece of legislation based upon the Commerce Clause.

Okay, so what are you saying?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Okay, so what are you saying?

Exactly what I said. A question was asked, I answered it.

Maybe I'm not getting your question...could you be a little more specific? What part of what I said is it that you don't get?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Exactly what I said. A question was asked, I answered it.

Maybe I'm not getting your question...could you be a little more specific? What part of what I said is it that you don't get?

Honestly the CC wasn't an issue until the FDR court stacking threat, precedence has been skewed towards misinterpretation since then. The problem with deferring to the court is that not all of their decisions are based on proper interpretation of the constitution and after FDR the commerce clause got weakened severely. The only time before then that the CC was a major issue was the tariff's between northern and southern states pre-civil war that were never heard by the court, realistically though the ninth and tenth are interdependent and together specify what the federal can and cannot do.

 

[jet57]

Honestly the CC wasn't an issue until the FDR court stacking threat, precedence has been skewed towards misinterpretation since then. The problem with deferring to the court is that not all of their decisions are based on proper interpretation of the constitution and after FDR the commerce clause got weakened severely. The only time before then that the CC was a major issue was the tariff's between northern and southern states pre-civil war that were never heard by the court, realistically though the ninth and tenth are interdependent and together specify what the federal can and cannot do.

Uh, pointed out the IX and X early in this thread, and there is nuuuuuthing about either one of them that places any limitation on the federal government whatsoever. It is both the CC and the elastic clause which allows the government to grow with the times and the needs of our society.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Uh, pointed out the IX and X early in this thread, and there is nuuuuuthing about either one of them that places any limitation on the federal government whatsoever. It is both the CC and the elastic clause which allows the government to grow with the times and the needs of our society.

and the desires of whoever happens to be in power.

 

[LaMidRighter]

and the desires of whoever happens to be in power.

That's the problem with mis-interpreting the clause, it's not an unlimited power to the government but rather a very limited power to make trade "regular" or to use the founder's meaning "in good working order" which really boils down to very little actual scope. The scope was meant to keep interstate tariffs from being issued or other restrictions among the many states. Only during an irregular trade or if the constitution were to be violated did the federal government to have any say over state business according to the founders intent.

 

[jet57]

and the desires of whoever happens to be in power.

Ya mean like signing statements or a new federal police force?

 

[jet57]

That's the problem with mis-interpreting the clause, it's not an unlimited power to the government but rather a very limited power to make trade "regular" or to use the founder's meaning "in good working order" which really boils down to very little actual scope. The scope was meant to keep interstate tariffs from being issued or other restrictions among the many states. Only during an irregular trade or if the constitution were to be violated did the federal government to have any say over state business according to the founders intent.

You have not able to show any such limitations so all you can offer is an uninformed opinion on the matter.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ya mean like signing statements or a new federal police force?

Like signing statements, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention without trial, committing the country to war without a declaration, quite a few things. New federal police force? did I miss something?

 

[TurtleDude]

I have yet to hear of any limits imposed upon the Commerce Power. Lots of speculation of course. But so far I don't know of a single SCOTUS case that has stopped a piece of legislation based upon the Commerce Clause.

Lopez v US-gun free school zone-found to have exceeded congressional power based on the CC

 

[TurtleDude]

You have not able to show any such limitations so all you can offer is an uninformed opinion on the matter.

You continue to ignore the tenth amendment

read that case I cited

 

[LaMidRighter]

Like signing statements, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention without trial, committing the country to war without a declaration, quite a few things. New federal police force? did I miss something?

To be perfectly honest, most of that falls under martial law and military courts, it was not honestly powers granted to the legislative or executive. Signing statements are a joke, not found within the realm of executive powers if they aren't under the immediate jurisdiction of the executive, lots of loopholes exploited there.

 

[teamosil]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

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".

The Department of Education doesn't exercise any power over anybody except spending and obviously the constitution grants the federal government that power, right?

 

[Joe Steel]

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

Whatever the Supreme Court wish them to be

 

[jet57]

Like signing statements, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention without trial, committing the country to war without a declaration, quite a few things. New federal police force? did I miss something?

Yeah; "Homeland Security"

 

[jet57]

Lopez v US-gun free school zone-found to have exceeded congressional power based on the CC

I haven't seen a link to a case you've cited.

 

[Dittohead not!]

To be perfectly honest, most of that falls under martial law and military courts, it was not honestly powers granted to the legislative or executive. Signing statements are a joke, not found within the realm of executive powers if they aren't under the immediate jurisdiction of the executive, lots of loopholes exploited there.

A lot of it falls under martial law, except for the part about declaring war which is what would have to take place in order for martial law to have taken effect.

We seem to be under not only martial law, but a whole lot of extra Constitutional powers granted to the government.

 

[LaMidRighter]

A lot of it falls under martial law, except for the part about declaring war which is what would have to take place in order for martial law to have taken effect.

We seem to be under not only martial law, but a whole lot of extra Constitutional powers granted to the government.

The problem is it was never declared, ML should always be declared to make those things proper and only during a time of unrest, usually civil(not the case) or if a war effort hinges on it(not convinced here). Congress took over the power to declare war after 'Nam relegating the president's powers to short term police actions and truthfully I am okay with that but wish it had been done through amendment rather than legislation. My take is there just isn't a way to fully get back to constitutional principles immediately but we've got to start somewhere, the commerce clause and the tenth amendment are important to regain.