Twisting of the constitution.

[Master PO]

The original intent of the Commerce Cause was to force states to mind their own business, putting them in their necessary and proper place so that the federal governemnt could have free and confident rein when negotiating international agreements. On the domestic side, it was to keep the states from forever invoking home state and home port advantage laws that served to fatten local wallets but worsen the economic condition of the nation as a whole.

And what right-wingers really have their problem with is not how the Commerce Clause has been expanded at all, but rather how interstate commerce itself has been expanded. There was a whole lot less of it when 20-30 miles was a day's ride and rivers were actually obstacles. It's the advance of science and technology that has expanded the applicability of the Commerce Clause, not activist judges, but right-wingers can't seem to see that.

wrong .....the commerce clause was to prevent trader wars, barriers between states.

it says to regulate AMONG the states...not in them.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

wrong .....the commerce clause was to prevent trader wars, barriers between states. it says to regulate AMONG the states...not in them.

Or not...

To the People of the State of New York:
IN ADDITION to the defects already enumerated in the existing federal system, there are others of not less importance, which concur in rendering it altogether unfit for the administration of the affairs of the Union. The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States. No nation acquainted with the nature of our political association would be unwise enough to enter into stipulations with the United States, by which they conceded privileges of any importance to them, while they were apprised that the engagements on the part of the Union might at any moment be violated by its members, and while they found from experience that they might enjoy every advantage they desired in our markets, without granting us any return but such as their momentary convenience might suggest.

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22

 

[Master PO]

Or not...

To the People of the State of New York:
IN ADDITION to the defects already enumerated in the existing federal system, there are others of not less importance, which concur in rendering it altogether unfit for the administration of the affairs of the Union. The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States. No nation acquainted with the nature of our political association would be unwise enough to enter into stipulations with the United States, by which they conceded privileges of any importance to them, while they were apprised that the engagements on the part of the Union might at any moment be violated by its members, and while they found from experience that they might enjoy every advantage they desired in our markets, without granting us any return but such as their momentary convenience might suggest.

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22

A key failing of the Articles of Confederation was the propensity of states to erect protectionist trade barriers. When the Framers met in Philadelphia in 1787 and wrote the constitution that governs us today, they addressed that failure and through the commerce and the privileges and immunities clauses that created a national free-trade zone. Thus, the original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn't intend for the commerce clause to govern so much of our lives. Indeed, as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison who helped write much of the constitution understood the true meaning of the commerce clause as well as the other representatives at the constitutional convention in 1787. The intent of this clause was to regulate trade between the states which meant to James Madison make trade regular to prevent tariff wars and unfair trade barriers between the states.

In his own words Madison writes: “It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.” The commerce clause was never meant to regulate every aspect of an American citizen’s commercial (and in today’s overreaching federal regulatory climate) private life.


I will venture to say that very great improvements, and very economical regulations, will be made. It will be a principal object to guard against smuggling, and such other attacks on the revenue as other nations are subject to. We are now obliged to defend against those lawless attempts; but, from the interfering regulations of different states, with little success. There are (regulations in different states which are unfavorable to the inhabitants of other states), and which militate against the revenue. New York levies money from New Jersey by her imposts. In New Jersey, instead of cooperating with New York, the legislature favors violations on her regulations. This will not be the case when uniform regulations will be made.--James Madison

The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy. -- Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 22

 

[Cardinal Fang]

A key failing of the Articles of Confederation was the propensity of states to erect protectionist trade barriers.

Because they never had a Commerce Clause, the lack of which was even more importantly mucking up efforts at international trade negotiation. The situation had become intolerable in everyone's eyes.

They didn't intend for the commerce clause to govern so much of our lives.

They intended for the Commerce Clause to establish firm federal control over interstate commerce. As already noted, the share of all commerce that is interstate in nature has expanded greatly since 1787. If you think this is grounds for amending the Commerce Clause, write some sort of amendment and see if you can get it passed. We otherwise have no evidence at all that either the original meaning or intent of the clause was anything other than what I just stated.

Indeed, as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained...

What happened to all that thoughtful reading and studying of Hamilton that you promised? You are simply ignoring his words and reposting the same bland preselected quotations that you have posted a dozen times before.

The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy. -- Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 22

Yeah, I posted and you ignored the text from Federalist No. 22 that PRECEDES those words -- as in having been given the headline spot. You pretend that the words were never written.

 

[Master PO]

Because they never had a Commerce Clause, the lack of which was even more importantly mucking up efforts at international trade negotiation. The situation had become intolerable in everyone's eyes.


They intended for the Commerce Clause to establish firm federal control over interstate commerce. As already noted, the share of all commerce that is interstate in nature has expanded greatly since 1787. If you think this is grounds for amending the Commerce Clause, write some sort of amendment and see if you can get it passed. We otherwise have no evidence at all that either the original meaning or intent of the clause was anything other than what I just stated.


What happened to all that thoughtful reading and studying of Hamilton that you promised? You are simply ignoring his words and reposting the same bland preselected quotations that you have posted a dozen times before.


Yeah, I posted and you ignored the text from Federalist No. 22 that PRECEDES those words -- as in having been given the headline spot. You pretend that the words were never written.

what i set out too do is provide that commerce in the clause dealing with the states, was about the problems they had with states among themselves over trade.

the term is AMONG states, not in them.....a·mong/əˈməNG/

Preposition:

Surrounded by; in the company of.
Being a member or members of (a larger set<-------): "he was among the first 29 students enrolled".

 

[Master PO]

Commerce Clause

Another area of the Constitution where interpretations have differed significantly since the ratification of the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. Conservative and libertarian legal experts interpret this clause from an originalist viewpoint, arguing that the power to "regulate" is actually the power to "make regular." Under this interpretation, the Commerce Clause was put into the Constitution to give the federal government the power to prevent states from erecting barriers to commerce against each other, such as tariffs on goods from other states, or forbidding interstate exchange altogether. Essentially, the originalists argue that the Framers wanted to ensure domestic free trade in America.

Progressives (and many neo-conservatives) tend to rely on past Supreme Court interpretations of the Commerce Clause. One of the most cited cases is Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which followed closely after FDR threatened to "pack the Court" to make sure it didn't rule his new laws unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate any economic activity that has substantial effect (in the aggregate) on interstate commerce.

Recently, the Commerce Clause has received revived attention in determining the constitutional basis for the "individual mandate" portion of the Obama Administration's new health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as "Obamacare"). The individual mandate would require all citizens to purchase health insurance, and those who do not purchase insurance would have to pay a penalty.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Your increasingly obdurate desperation has lent a certain air of the tiresome to the thread. Does Hamilton speak of regrettable irregularities in interstate trade? No, he does not. He speaks instead first of the frustration of international trade negotiations, and second of dissatisfactions that have been worked upon the states. He does not see this as any trifling matter either...

It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence.

Notice that what he sees as strongly demanded here is a federal superintendence of interstate commerce. Have your phony right-wing lawyer types come up with a theory to restrict the definition of superintend yet?

After having lived with the lack of such a power, the founders of 1787 were impelled to a system in which the federal government could reach all matters of interstate commerce. One-time state sovereignty over such things was to be jettisoned and replaced by federal sovereignty. Deal with it.

And again, you have not replied with a single word related to the fact that your actual complaint is not with any change that has been worked in the Commerce Clause since 1787, but rather with all the changes that have occurred in interstate commerce since that time. Yours is a complaint against progress, a complaint against modernity, a complaint against the march of time. It has no deeper actual basis than that.

 

[Master PO]

Your increasingly obdurate desperation has lent a certain air of the tiresome to the thread. Does Hamilton speak of regrettable irregularities in interstate trade? No, he does not. He speaks instead first of the frustration of international trade negotiations, and second of dissatisfactions that have been worked upon the states. He does not see this as any trifling matter either...

It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence.

Notice that what he sees as strongly demanded here is a federal superintendence of interstate commerce. Have your phony right-wing lawyer types come up with a theory to restrict the definition of superintend yet?

After having lived with the lack of such a power, the founders of 1787 were impelled to a system in which the federal government could reach all matters of interstate commerce. One-time state sovereignty over such things was to be jettisoned and replaced by federal sovereignty. Deal with it.

And again, you have not replied with a single word related to the fact that your actual complaint is not with any change that has been worked in the Commerce Clause since 1787, but rather with all the changes that have occurred in interstate commerce since that time. Yours is a complaint against progress, a complaint against modernity, a complaint against the march of time. It has no deeper actual basis than that.

it seems your not getting it.

what is the conversation?

why was it created in the first place?........to prevent trade barriers, wars of commerce --->AMONG the states.

"One-time state sovereignty over such things was to be jettisoned and replaced by federal sovereignty. Deal with it.

so your for ending the union of states, and creating a national government which controls the all the land water, sky, ...anything which moves regulate it, if it stands still, tax it!.

and let government determine what our rights will be, put the American people into the hands of government , and they shall be in command of all we hold dear!

 

[Cardinal Fang]

it seems your not getting it.

Oh, I get it alright. You'll just continue to duck and divert and make up stuff until the cows come home. It's all you've got left. It was the founders specific intent that the federal govenrment be able to reach all aspects of interstate commerce. The idea was not controversial in their day. They did not need to couch the limited scope of their intentions behind arcane meanings of "regulate" or "among". They stated their case plainly and openly. The wages of not having had such reach under the Articles were after all a persuasive force indeed. In the more than two centuries since of course, interstate commerce has come to mean very nearly all commerce. That's life.

so your for ending the union of states, and creating a national government which controls the all the land water, sky, ...anything which moves regulate it, if it stands still, tax it!. and let government determine what our rights will be, put the American people into the hands of government , and they shall be in command of all we hold dear!

No, I'm for ending the posting of blabbering nonsense and drivel as if it were in any way meaningul or relevant to anything.

 

[Master PO]

One-time state sovereignty over such things was to be jettisoned and replaced by federal sovereignty. Deal with it.

well i am sure i know that this means.

Sovereignty: is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal explanation can be provided.

so we get rid of the union of states and their OWN sovereignty, and turn over sovereignty too the the federal government........which of coarse would turn them into a national government, and make the u.s..... a country, instead of a union.

which of coarse would violate the u.s. constitution, because its states we are a union of states.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect (Union), establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

never mind, that the Constitution was WRITTEN in the first place to prevent the federal government from infringing of the powers of the states and the people.

the federal governments MAIN DUTY!..........--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed......as Madison says. "if men were angels ,no government would be necessary", so governments are created to protect the rights of the people.

 

[samsmart]

Why have we allowed the government to tell us that general welfare clause gives them power outside the enumerated powers, that taxing power equals spending power and that necessary and proper allows them to break our laws and that commerce clause gives them power to regulate intrastate commerce instead of interstate commerce?

Because what Americans want out of federal government has changed since the times of the Founding Fathers, and so our interpretation of the Constitution has changed since we won't draft a new Constitution.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Because what Americans want out of federal government has changed since the times of the Founding Fathers, and so our interpretation of the Constitution has changed since we won't draft a new Constitution.

So you changed the meaning deceptively because you wanted bigger government? Yep.

 

[Jeezy]

Under this interpretation, the Commerce Clause was put into the Constitution to give the federal government the power to prevent states from erecting barriers to commerce against each other, such as tariffs on goods from other states, or forbidding interstate exchange altogether. Essentially, the originalists argue that the Framers wanted to ensure domestic free trade in America.

John Marshall, the first chief justice, and the first man to ever legally interpret the commerce clause, would disagree with that interpretation based on the language in McCulloch v. Maryland, although that was decided on N&P clause grounds.

Progressives (and many neo-conservatives) tend to rely on past Supreme Court interpretations of the Commerce Clause. One of the most cited cases is Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which followed closely after FDR threatened to "pack the Court" to make sure it didn't rule his new laws unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate any economic activity that has substantial effect (in the aggregate) on interstate commerce.

It's not just "any" activity. Look at the facts of the case -- it was a merchant choosing to overgrow a fungible commodity which would preclude his buying it from other, similar merchants.

 

[Master PO]

John Marshall, the first chief justice, and the first man to ever legally interpret the commerce clause, would disagree with that interpretation based on the language in McCulloch v. Maryland, although that was decided on N&P clause grounds.



It's not just "any" activity. Look at the facts of the case -- it was a merchant choosing to overgrow a fungible commodity which would preclude his buying it from other, similar merchants.

i am going by what the founders represented...

as to the latter:

i merely posted this as a contrast to the difference of the two positions.

 

[Jeezy]

i am going by what the founders represented...

John Marshall was alive during the drafting of the Constitution. And personally knew the founders. And in many regards, is a founder himself.

So on top of being the first man to EVER legally interpret the commerce clause, how is he disqualified?

 

[Master PO]

John Marshall was alive during the drafting of the Constitution. And personally knew the founders. And in many regards, is a founder himself.

So on top of being the first man to EVER legally interpret the commerce clause, how is he disqualified?

your correct, but i am stating what Madison stated, not Marshall.

this is why i am a constitutionalists, and the question for me, on the issues is.......what does Madison say?

Marshall, and all the other USSC judges also ruled that the bill of rights only applied the the federal government.....just some info.

 

[Jeezy]

your correct, but i am stating what Madison stated, not Marshall.

this is why i am a constitutionalists, and the question for me, on the issues is.......what does Madison say?

So what you're saying is, you're not an originalist. You just prefer James Madison's interpretation over other people's. Madison's attempt to incorporate the BoR was opposed and, indeed, defeated by other founding fathers. All of whom were, shall we say, "original."

Marshall, and all the other USSC judges also ruled that the bill of rights only applied the the federal government.....just some info.

Being an originalist means founder's intent, not Madison's intent.

 

[Master PO]

So what you're saying is, you're not an originalist. You just prefer James Madison's interpretation over other people's. Madison's attempt to incorporate the BoR was opposed and, indeed, defeated by other founding fathers. All of whom were, shall we say, "original."

Being an originalist means founder's intent, not Madison's intent.

Madison is the father of the constitution, he wrote it. Madison in the beginning was a federalist, and didn't think a BOR was necessary, but George Mason pushed for it, and Madison wrote it. it appears in 1789 two yrs after the constitution, and ratified in 1791. it was the anti-federalist who would not ratify the constitution useless a BOR was supplied....

Madison is the man on the constitution........

 

[Jeezy]

Madison is the father of the constitution, he wrote it. Madison in the beginning was a federalist, and didn't think a BOR was necessary, but George Mason pushed for it, and Madison wrote it. it appears in 1789 two yrs after the constitution, and ratified in 1791. it was the anti-federalist who would not ratify the constitution useless a BOR was supplied....

Madison is the man on the constitution........

(originalism) the belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authorSSS originally intended it
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You're only subscribing to the beliefs of one author. Jefferson and Paine also had large roles to play in the writing of the document. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. Gouverneur Morris was responsible for most of the actual wording of the constitution, not Madison. Crediting Madison with many of the ideas is fair...and giving him the title of "Father of the Constitution" doesn't bother me. But to suggest that no other founding father's opinion on the Constitution matters, and that they didn't write it? Absurd. Heck, even Madison didn't literally "write" the final draft. Morris did. Madison merely wrote the Virginia Plan, which was amended significantly by the rest of the fathers.

...so again, you are not an originalist. You're just a Madisonian.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

John Marshall, the first chief justice...

Actaully, John Jay was the first Chief Justice. John Marshall was the fourth, following also John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth.

 

[Jeezy]

Actaully, John Jay was the first Chief Justice. John Marshall was the fourth, following also John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth.

The first Chief Justice in the modern context of the office. Prior to judicial review, it's not like SCOTUS mattered.

 

[Master PO]

(originalism) the belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authorSSS originally intended it
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You're only subscribing to the beliefs of one author. Jefferson and Paine also had large roles to play in the writing of the document. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. Gouverneur Morris was responsible for most of the actual wording of the constitution, not Madison. Crediting Madison with many of the ideas is fair...and giving him the title of "Father of the Constitution" doesn't bother me. But to suggest that no other founding father's opinion on the Constitution matters, and that they didn't write it? Absurd. Heck, even Madison didn't literally "write" the final draft. Morris did. Madison merely wrote the Virginia Plan, which was amended significantly by the rest of the fathers.

since the founders, jay, Hamilton, and Madison wrote the federalist papers....explaining the constitution to the people through the papers of the day...jay writing only a small part, this leaves the rest to Madison and Hamilton.

After American independence had been won, Paine played no part in the establishment of the new republic. Instead, he busied himself trying to invent a smokeless candle and devising an iron bridge, Jefferson had been in France for many years, and had only returned from France after the ratification of the constitution.

 

[Jeezy]

since the founders, jay, Hamilton, and Madison wrote the federalist papers....explaining the constitution to the people through the papers of the day...jay writing only a small part, this leaves the rest to Madison and Hamilton.

After American independence had been won, Paine played no part in the establishment of the new republic. Instead, he busied himself trying to invent a smokeless candle and devising an iron bridge, Jefferson had been in France for many years, and had only returned from France after the ratification of the constitution.

...how exactly does this disprove the fact that Madison only wrote the Virginia Plan, which was then significantly expanded and reworded by every founding father at the Constitutional Convention? The Federalist Papers alone are not evidence that he was father of the Constitution, or that he had a monopoly on original intent. Especially since other founding fathers were publishing Anti-Federalist papers.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The first Chief Justice in the modern context of the office. Prior to judicial review, it's not like SCOTUS mattered.

Yes, judicial review was one of those powers that prior to Marshall had lain dormant and undetected within the Constituition, only to be discovered once the circumstances warranted it. I believe some emanations and penumbras were involved.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Yes, judicial review was one of those powers that prior to Marshall had lain dormant and undetected within the Constituition, only to be discovered once the circumstances warranted it. I believe some emanations and penumbras were involved.

Undetected?

You realize the Constitution isn't as long as, say, Obamacare.