New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Assume massive Kenyesian Spending

trapdoor

Governor
It is the CHOICE in its context that matters.
Yes, and in the context of the writing of the constitution, "general welfare" is the welfare of the states, generally, and is bound by the detail of powers.

And yet you support McDonald which is a judicial ruling that negates militia and basically eviscerates the core of Am 2 and you oppose the use of the Commerce Clause as written.
As McDonald doesn't do this, I'm satisfied in not responding. To find that McDonald negates the militia clause (when it has no bearing on that clause) and eviscerates the 2nd Amendment rests on taking one passage of the decision out of context -- while ignoring the remaining 3,000 + (guess) words in that decision. Go try selling your view somewhere else, where you're debating someone unfamiliar with the decision, degs. It won't fly here.

Youare not consistent. Even your "Marbury is settled law" jumps the shark on that since as you admit Marbury is the very sort of arrogation not banned by the Constitution but not also empowered explicitly by it, that you object to elsewhere for "settled law".
The difference is that I don't see Marbury as the sort of arrogation banned by the Constitution. If SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the land,and constitutional questions come before it, would it have enver LACKED the ability to rule on constitutional issues? I'd say not.

The reason that your country store purchase IS interstate, is that the product is an interstate product.
And its interestate nature has been addressed before my purchase. MY PURCHASE is a local one, confined between me and a local vendor, and should not be subject to interstate regulation. If a farmer grows his own wheat, mills it into flour, makes the flour into bread, and sells it to the person across the road, no amount of legal legerdemain will make that interstate trade, yet it is so considered today. The difference between us is that I think that is wrong.

Using your logic NOTHING is interstate. Because ALL transactions occur in some given location.
And thus absent a transaction where I am standing on one side of a state border and you on the other - there is no such thing as "interstate commerce". Using your logic the sale of the Bread to the store is local to the store. The sale of the wheat to Wonder is local to where it is baked.. NONE of them are "interstate"... and yet clearly that chain is an interstate commerce chain. Your interpretation essentially makes a mockery of interstate commerce regulation.
And using your reasoning, all trade is interstate. Buy perhaps I misunderstand you -- give me an example of a transaction you would not regard as being involved in interstate trade.
 

degsme

Council Member
No. Simply because a text is lifted from somewhere doesn't mean that the original's context still applies. AoC's were about States' Rights. Constitution was about a strong Foederal Government.

Marshall's arrogation in Marbury to flesh out the scope of the definition of "All Cases in.. Law" is no different than Congress fleshing out the scope of "Common Defense", "Debts of the USA" and "provide for the General Welfare"... You cannot be logically consistent and accept the judiciary's "fleshing out", and rejecting One of three such "fleshing outs" by the lege and arbitrarily constrain the second, while overfleshing the third (POTUS Cannot initiate a war despite being CinC even in "providing for the Common Defense").

That's precisely the kind of capricious, ideology based "activist" reading of the Constitution you claim to hate. So is your rather bizarre redefinition of what is Interstate Commerce. As I pointed out in my previous post, using YOUR definition of "local purchase" aka "local commerce" - the ONLY "interstate commerce" is the one that would occur if you stood on once side of a state line and I stood on the other and we handed goods and money across the line. Which is a ludicrous definition.

So is the idea that you can distinguish between farmer A loading up his truck and driving it to sell his grain to the mill across the street, or Farmer B loading up his truck driving it across a state line and then selling his grain in a LOCAL transaction to the mill on that side of the street. Any attempt to make such a distinction means that Farmer A is being treated Differently than Farmer B if they are selling at the same mill. And the very explicitly stated basis for the existance of The Commerce Clause is specifically to eliminate such a distinction.

That means that inherently, any regulations Farmer B is subject to, MUST ALSO apply to Farmer A IF Farmer A chooses to engage in COMMERCE. You may think that is wrong, but the Commerce Clause explicitly says that your perception of "right and wrong" is different than that of The Constitutional intent.

And using your reasoning, all trade is interstate.
It was not in 1789. It is today. yes. The TECHNOLOGY of trade and markets is what changed that.
 
Basically, everything is national commerce anyway. I really cannot think of a single product that is not produced in each and every state which cannot be sold across state lines. With the advent of the internet, you can buy anything made in any state from anywhere in the world. There is really nothing produced in one state that is not part of a national market. I cannot think of one single thing. Can someone name such a product or service?
 

degsme

Council Member
Basically, everything is national commerce anyway. I really cannot think of a single product that is not produced in each and every state which cannot be sold across state lines. With the advent of the internet, you can buy anything made in any state from anywhere in the world. There is really nothing produced in one state that is not part of a national market. I cannot think of one single thing. Can someone name such a product or service?
Exactly. Trap doesn't like that... bummer.
 

trapdoor

Governor
No. Simply because a text is lifted from somewhere doesn't mean that the original's context still applies. AoC's were about States' Rights. Constitution was about a strong Foederal Government.
Read the actual record from its adoption, and tell me it was given any meaning it lacked in the Articles.

Marshall's arrogation in Marbury to flesh out the scope of the definition of "All Cases in.. Law" is no different than Congress fleshing out the scope of "Common Defense", "Debts of the USA" and "provide for the General Welfare"...
Well, of course it is different as Congress has no ability to change the meaning of the Constitution outside the amendment process. Congress doesn't get to "flesh out" the Constitution -- it writes laws, and the laws may be reviewed by the courts to determine their constitutionality.

You cannot be logically consistent and accept the judiciary's "fleshing out", and rejecting One of three such "fleshing outs" by the lege and arbitrarily constrain the second, while overfleshing the third (POTUS Cannot initiate a war despite being CinC even in "providing for the Common Defense").


I have'n't made the argument you're attaching to me. I've never said the president can initiate a war. The president can, however, employ troops in military actions that are not wars.

That's precisely the kind of capricious, ideology based "activist" reading of the Constitution you claim to hate. So is your rather bizarre redefinition of what is Interstate Commerce. As I pointed out in my previous post, using YOUR definition of "local purchase" aka "local commerce" - the ONLY "interstate commerce" is the one that would occur if you stood on once side of a state line and I stood on the other and we handed goods and money across the line. Which is a ludicrous definition.
And as I pointed out, using your definitions of both "interestate" and "commerce" everything is interstate, and every activity is commerce, and Congress is effectively granted a plenary power to regulate or police any activity.


.

That means that inherently, any regulations Farmer B is subject to, MUST ALSO apply to Farmer A IF Farmer A chooses to engage in COMMERCE.
No -- not if Farmer B (or whichever) is not engaged in INTERSTATE commerce. Why would the federal government have the ability to regulate a product that is not sold across a state line? If Farmer A in Kansas ships to Wonder bread, in Kansas, and the bread is sold (in Kansas) where does the federal government have a role?

You may think that is wrong, but the Commerce Clause explicitly says that your perception of "right and wrong" is different than that of The Constitutional intent.
No, that isn't what it says, and that you think so is part of the problem. What the commerce clause says is Congress has the authority to regulate trade among the various states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes. It doesn't grant an authority over trade within a single state.

It was not in 1789. It is today. yes. The TECHNOLOGY of trade and markets is what changed that.
I'm sorry -- not all trade is interstate even today.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Basically, everything is national commerce anyway. I really cannot think of a single product that is not produced in each and every state which cannot be sold across state lines. With the advent of the internet, you can buy anything made in any state from anywhere in the world. There is really nothing produced in one state that is not part of a national market. I cannot think of one single thing. Can someone name such a product or service?
You can, but you needn't. I know a lady who makes a full time living doing rather cheesy paintings of dogs and cats on salvaged items such as metal cookie boxes and old saw blades, which she sells at an open air market near her house. She's engaged in interstate trade when she does this? Not hardly.
 

degsme

Council Member
You can, but you needn't. I know a lady who makes a full time living doing rather cheesy paintings of dogs and cats on salvaged items such as metal cookie boxes and old saw blades, which she sells at an open air market near her house. She's engaged in interstate trade when she does this? Not hardly.
How not? What percentage of people who come to that market are local vs. touristy? The very fact that she can sell her wares and make a living REQUIRES an interstate market because the local market would be saturated very quickly - after all her product is not "consumable" the way TP or bread is.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I'm not saying you are a racist and sexist. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated how you can take a non-interventionist view that you do, and still be able to get rid of Jim Crow and not enforce gender discrimination.
That simply doesn't follow, Degs. For one thing, I didn't take a non-interventionist view -- I offered a constitutionally valid means of intervention via the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause.

As to legislation vs. regulation - the problem is that you then close the door to appeals, and adjustments for facts on the ground. Again, you create a more brittle and more cumbersome system.
In actual operation, it is the regulations that offer no means of appeal and are very brittle -- the regulatory appeals process basically eliminates the individual's right to a fair hearing. If you can get before a judge, it won't be a regular federal circuit or appeals judge, it will be a hearing judge that works for the regulatory agency (I've been involved in some of this kind of appeals). Who pay sthat judge and where does the judge's interest lie? With, of course, the agency where he works.

Now as to Miller and McDonald I'm going to go with the analysts who are Constitutional scholars but not gun fetishists. Because they are looking at it from a Constitutioanl analytics perspective rather than seeking confirmation of their beliefs.
Nonsense -- I can cited analysts who are every bit as erudite, and say just the opposite. Further, I don't think you'll describe Justice Kennedy as a "gun fetishist" and he supported both rulings.

Now, go down to the water and enjoy your fetish for outdated means of seaborne propulsion.
 

trapdoor

Governor
How not? What percentage of people who come to that market are local vs. touristy? The very fact that she can sell her wares and make a living REQUIRES an interstate market because the local market would be saturated very quickly - after all her product is not "consumable" the way TP or bread is.
Not touristy at all. A local farmer's market. It's not impossible, I suppose that someone may have once visited it from another state. That still wouldn't make this painter an interstate trader. Did her good's cross state lines? Did she attempt to sell on the Internet or to otherwise market to a broader customer base? No. To say that her trade crosses state lines, or that the locally made bread crosses state lines and is "interstate" is to vastly overload the meaning of interstate to the point where it simply has no meaning. The very thoughts in one's head then become a matter of interstate trade.
 

degsme

Council Member
Again, the General Welfare Clause was lifted from the AoCs... But as Hamilton observes in Federalist 30:
Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.
o o o
The present Confederation, feeble as it is intended to repose in the United States, an unlimited power of providing for the pecuniary wants of the Union. But proceeding upon an erroneous principle, it has been done in such a manner as entirely to have frustrated the intention. Congress, by the articles which compose that compact (as has already been stated), are authorized to ascertain and call for any sums of money necessary, in their judgment, to the service of the United States;
IOW Even in the AoC's.. the General Welfare Clause is broad and comprehensive, but because central taxing authority was hamstrung, it could not be properly implemented.

THIS IS YOUR TALMUD HERE... the Federalist Papers.... This is Hamilton being very clear that spending is Plenary..

Marshall's arrogation in Marbury to flesh out the scope of the definition of "All Cases in.. Law" is no different than Congress fleshing out the scope of "Common Defense", "Debts of the USA" and "provide for the General Welfare"...
Well, of course it is different as Congress has no ability to change the meaning of the Constitution outside the amendment process.[/quote]
No it is no different.

  • Congress BY LAW can define what is and is not a "debt of the United States"
  • Congress BY LAW can define what is and is not part of "the common Defense of the United States"
  • Congress BY LAW can define whether or not an Executive Order has or lacks The Force of Law. (it has had the Force of Law since Pres. Washington's first EO in 1793)

Clearly Congress does define and redefine aspects of the Constitution by law all the time. But this is empowered by the Necessary and Proper clause. No such empowerment exists for the SCOTUS.

I have'n't made the argument you're attaching to me. I've never said the president can initiate a war. The president can, however, employ troops in military actions that are not wars.
No you have said that the POTUS has the authority to initiate military actions against other sovereign nations. That is itself an "Act of War" under the "Laws of Nations" and has been since before the founding of the nation and is thus incorporated law. Thus "initiating War" and "initiating an Act of War" are legally (and hence Constitutionally) indistinguishable.

Your arguement turns a blind eye to this and redefines "war" as simply any military engagement you want it to be (such as the UNProFor participation in the Sovereign Nation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - where the USA is in a "state of war" with no-one) and not one you do not want it to be (invading Iraq with no Declaration of War from Congress, nor any causus belli from Iraq).

If ever there was an unleashing of governmental power - the power to initiate and wage war is it - since it deals with the suppression of the most basic of rights. And yet you blithely eviscerate the very clearly stated, the very clearly structured, the very clearly documented and the very clearly SCOTUS Rulings that contradict your position.

That means that inherently, any regulations Farmer B is subject to, MUST ALSO apply to Farmer A IF Farmer A chooses to engage in COMMERCE.
No -- not if Farmer B (or whichever) is not engaged in INTERSTATE commerce.
Under your definition of "interstate Commerce"... NO FARMER is engaged in "interstate commerce"... because your definition of "sold across a state line" means that the transaction itself is literally transacted across the line. After all, you do not consider it "interstate commerce" to conclude a transaction locally, even if the product is interstate sourced.

What the commerce clause says is Congress has the authority to regulate trade among the various states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes. It doesn't grant an authority over trade within a single state.
And again - where then does interstate commerce occur? In orbit above the states? In some magically created Houyhnhnm-land that does not exist WITHIN A SINGLE STATE?

Seriously Trap... ALL Commerce - short of physically reaching across a state line (which until the advent of the telephone and internet was rare if not non-existant at best), TAKES PLACE WITHIN A SINGLE STATE. Thus what matters in whether or not a transaction is "interstate" is whether

  1. There is a high likelihood of the results of the commerce crossing state lines (applies to your painter acquaintance)
  2. The products key components HAVE crossed state lines (Wonder bread)
  3. The purchasor or seller are often legal residents of another state (pretty much every other transaction)
  4. The product has a strong market in other states and thus altering the volume of its production locally affects the markets in other states (Scalia in Raich)
    [*]
    The results of production of the product, affect other states (Ohio emissions poisoning NY and New England lakes)

In particular #4 and #5 are essentially indistinguishable from an "Cause-effect" approach. you just don't like the implications of this.

So you seek to redefine "interstate commerce" to be only that commerce that is transacted physically across the state lines. And since the intertubes and even the telegraph had not yet been invented when this clause was created - the notion that they added something to The Constitution to deal with the case where a vendor stood on one side of a state-line and the purchasor on the other - is frankly ludicrous.

And yes, I am imposing that definition of "interstate Commerce" on you - because it is a logical extrapolation (best fit curve) of the examples you seem to consider "local" commerce. You have yet to define what you consider "interstate commerce"... and thus we can only reason based on your examples.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Again, the General Welfare Clause was lifted from the AoCs... But as Hamilton observes in Federalist 30:
Hamilton was not writing about the general welfare cluase in this snapshot of his views (he reversed himself so often that one needs a metaphorical corkscrew to follow his reasoning). He was writing about taxation in what you cited from Federalist 30. He made no mention of general welfare in that essay, and you're attempt to link the to is not up to your normal disputational skills.


THIS IS YOUR TALMUD HERE... the Federalist Papers.... This is Hamilton being very clear that spending is Plenary..
My "Talmud" is called "the Talmud" (although I'm not Jewish and feel no need for regular reference to its teachings). "My" federalist papers are called "The Federalist." My Constitution is the Constitution of the United States. The interesting thing linking all three efforts is that Hamilton calls for plenary spending in none of them. He makes no mention of it at all in your citation. He said it provides for the "pecuniary wants of the union." What are those pecuniary wants? Do they have limits, such as for example, the detail of defined powers? He doesn't say here. You're reading into his language that which is not said.


Well, of course it is different as Congress has no ability to change the meaning of the Constitution outside the amendment process.

No it is no different.
Yes. It is different as we shall see.

[*] Congress BY LAW can define what is and is not a "debt of the United States"
Not true. Your own distorted reading, out of context, of a phrase in the 14th Amendment.

[*]Congress BY LAW can define what is and is not part of "the common Defense of the United States"
Actually, I'm not certain what you mean here. Congress can't, for example, decide that the common defense of the United States can be furthered by eliminating the boundary between North and South Dakota and calling them one state. Clearly, then, Congress doesn't have the unlimited authority you're granting it here.

[*]Congress BY LAW can define whether or not an Executive Order has or lacks The Force of Law. (it has had the Force of Law since Pres. Washington's first EO in 1793)
True, but hardly relevant as Congress can decide that which is law and is not law in any case -- that's what legislature does is decide what the laws are. Our judiciary decides whether the laws passed by Congress conform to the Constitution and when they do not, the laws are thrown out -- or an amendment is required.



No you have said that the POTUS has the authority to initiate military actions against other sovereign nations. That is itself an "Act of War" under the "Laws of Nations" and has been since before the founding of the nation and is thus incorporated law. Thus "initiating War" and "initiating an Act of War" are legally (and hence Constitutionally) indistinguishable.
Not every military action against another nation is considered a war. Our country occupied Haiti for nearly a decade through the 20s and 30s, and there was never a war or a declaration thereof. You're going to lose any debate that doesn't recognize that and another dozen similar actions that are not matters of dispute -- they happened, and they were not wars. Further, for a state of war to exist there is no legal requirement that Congress declare the war (and that is true even given your own distorted reading of the Prize Cases). All that needs to happen is for the warring entity to declare war on the U.S. or to attack the U.S. or its allies, and we're "legally" at war without any declaration thereof.


Your arguement turns a blind eye to this and redefines "war" as simply any military engagement you want it to be (such as the UNProFor participation in the Sovereign Nation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - where the USA is in a "state of war" with no-one) and not one you do not want it to be (invading Iraq with no Declaration of War from Congress, nor any causus belli from Iraq).
And your view turns an equally blind eye to the fact that non national entities can conduct wartime operations against our government and are legitimately the subjects of a military response. We are not at war with the post-Taliban government of Afghanistan. We are definitely at war with an entity in Afghanistan who has declared war on us -- Al Qaeda. Our fight with that entity is sanctioned by our own laws, as we have a sovereign right to self defense against such an entity.


If ever there was an unleashing of governmental power - the power to initiate and wage war is it - since it deals with the suppression of the most basic of rights. And yet you blithely eviscerate the very clearly stated, the very clearly structured, the very clearly documented and the very clearly SCOTUS Rulings that contradict your position.
I do no such thing. I merely read the words written in the rulings and take them at face value. You cannnot enforce an implication. Further, I find no words in our Constitution that require a declaration of war -- where do those words appear? They do not.

Under your definition of "interstate Commerce"... NO FARMER is engaged in "interstate commerce"... because your definition of "sold across a state line" means that the transaction itself is literally transacted across the line. After all, you do not consider it "interstate commerce" to conclude a transaction locally, even if the product is interstate sourced
.

And under yours, all commerce is interstate, and all activities are commerce, and there are no limits to any regulation the government wants to set on any activity. I'm not certain how you can object, as I know you do, to Raich, based on your view of commerce.


And again - where then does interstate commerce occur? In orbit above the states? In some magically created Houyhnhnm-land that does not exist WITHIN A SINGLE STATE?
Puhlease -- When a freight train or 18-wheeler carries goods across a state line because a merchant in that state has ordered goods from aonother state, interstate commerce has occurred. When the merchant goes on to sell those goods within his own state, interstate commerce is not occurring.


[*]There is a high likelihood of the results of the commerce crossing state lines (applies to your painter acquaintance)
No -- a likelihood is insufficient for regulatory purposes. The commerce must be shown to be taking place before regulations should apply. We can't regulate a "liklihood" any more than we can enforce an implication.

[*]The products key components HAVE crossed state lines (Wonder bread)
Those key components can be regulated when they cross state lines -- but when the bread is sold there's no crossing of state lines and that trade shouldn't be regulated.

[*]The purchasor or seller are often legal residents of another state (pretty much every other transaction)
Only if you can show that this is actually taking place. We should never have a ruling like Wickard where a portion of the farmer's crop not being sold is "interstate" because the rest of it being sold might be interstate. The federal government can only regulate the interstate portion.

[*]The product has a strong market in other states and thus altering the volume of its production locally affects the markets in other states (Scalia in Raich)


Nope -- I don't care how strong the market is in another state, unless the product is being sold in that other market, it isn't interstate trade. Scalia was simply wrong (along with the majority of the court) in Raich.

The results of production of the product, affect other states (Ohio emissions poisoning NY and New England lakes)
Truly interstate, and probably legitimately regulable -- but not as commerce.


So you seek to redefine "interstate commerce" to be only that commerce that is transacted physically across the state lines. And since the intertubes and even the telegraph had not yet been invented when this clause was created - the notion that they added something to The Constitution to deal with the case where a vendor stood on one side of a state-line and the purchasor on the other - is frankly ludicrous.
Degs, if I order a toy helicopter off the Internet, it was probably made in China, imported to California, and will cross 10 state lines before it gets to me. The same will be largely true of any other mail order product, whether the order goes through a telephone line, postal mail, via satellites and fiber optics, or by snail trail. I'm saying all of those transactions are interstate in nature -- but me selling a tomato to my neighbor across the street is not.

And yes, I am imposing that definition of "interstate Commerce" on you - because it is a logical extrapolation (best fit curve) of the examples you seem to consider "local" commerce. You have yet to define what you consider "interstate commerce"... and thus we can only reason based on your examples.
I've now defined it.
 

degsme

Council Member
Taxation and spending are flip sides of the same coin. And clearly the statement is about plenary expenditure power since he starts off by saying
But these [military] are not the only objects to which the jurisdiction of the Union, in respect to revenue, must necessarily be empowered to extend. It must embrace a provision for the support of the national civil list; for the payment of the national debts contracted, or that may be contracted; and, in general, for all those matters which will call for disbursements out of the national treasury. The conclusion is, that there must be interwoven, in the frame of the government, a general power of taxation, in one shape or another.
Hamilton is quite clear that he is talking about all those powers that Congress declares as defining as necessary.

So again Trap, you are the one who puts extra high regard on The Federalist Paper arguements. and here is one talking about plenary spending power. Somethign that is NOT limited in The Constitution.

And this is clarified in the 14th Amendment:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,... shall not be questioned
That's about as plenary as you get. (and please don't go off on your silliness about an inclusive clause being a limiting clause. If you showed that argument to a potential news media during a job interview - as long as it wasn't Fox - you wouldn't get the job).

And under yours, all commerce is interstate
Today it pretty much is. Wasn't so when the Constitution was drafted. Technology and markets change.

When a freight train or 18-wheeler carries goods across a state line because a merchant in that state has ordered goods from aonother state, interstate commerce has occurred.
How? Under your example reasoning in the Wonderbread example - there is no transaction taking place at the time of the crossing. The transaction
EITHER

  • Took place at the place of origin where the sale was made and the money will be received
    OR
  • at the destination where product changes ownership and money is disbursed

That was your reasoning as to why the wonderbread purchase in the store is "local". And yes, the likelihood of something happening is the very core basis of Constitutionality of laws. "Reasonable Basis", "intermediate" and "strict" scrutiny ALL invoke the likelihood of something occuring. And that is precisely the issue in a "purchasor" and "seller" being from out of state.

Consider the same country store you described. What if they put up a sign that said "State Resident's ONLY".... Would that be Constitutional?

And the answer is very clearly NO. Because preferential treatment is being given to intra-state vs. inter-state transactions. And in fact that sort of bias in favor of intra-state vendors is precisely what the ICC was created to address. so even back then, it was not nearly as unregulated as you would make it out to be. So if such a simple distinction at such a LOCAL level was deemed regulatable, you don't have much of an arguement today

And so far you have not defined what defines "interstate commerce" without relying on the term itself. I have. but I'll do it again.

Interstate commerce is any commerce that occurs or is likely to occur between two or more parties from differing states, or any activity that affects markets or capital assets in another state.
Your turn.




As to wars... sorry, any military action AGAINST another nation is - under international law - An Act of War. Initiating An Act of War is the same as initiating a War. Don't like it? Take it up with Madison.
 
First of all, where are her materials made? Out of state? Should we demand that everything she uses is made in the same state? But even if that happened, the market for her art supplies is a national market (Didn't Scalia make this very argument about pot recently?). If the supplier she used in State A was offering up a lower price for a superior product, that would affect all the other supplies at the art store which were made in other places making that product a part of a national market. Sorry Trap, nothing is particular to a single state anymore, there is too much trade and too many options for buying or selling anything. Your example even if true is a tiny, tiny, almost infintessimally small part of the economy anyways.
 
I think you just answered your own question, it has no meaning anymore. Everything is national commerce, everything. When the nation was created, that may not have been so true but today, I can buy a piece of art from your lady friend or spend it on some art from Maine. I only have so many dollars for art. What if the stall next to her was a lady selling art from Maine? Are they competing for the same clients? Of course they are.
 
So you support using the commerce clause for water and likely air. I am pretty sure that none of the founders would have ever imagined this usage of the commerce clause. Not one mention of it in any documents that I know of relates their concern that the states on one side of a river would dump raw sewage into the river while the other state put in sewage plants. In other words, this is an example of the nation deciding that this was a huge problem and through legislation signed into law by Congress and the POTUS became a law that was necessary and proper and quite frankly, in keeping with their mandate to support the general welfare of the state and citizens. Looks like a slam dunk to me against original intent, quoting the Federalist Papers, mentioning what Madison thought as if it were the Bible etc. etc. etc. So which is it? If it's not mentioned in the minutes taken by Madison of the convention debates, not mentioned in the Federalist Papers (written by just three of the 55 men btw) or decided in courts for a long time, then how could a modern court all of a sudden uphold the legislation? Looks to me like they created a new definition of commerce unknown to the founders....
 

trapdoor

Governor
Taxation and spending are flip sides of the same coin.
Oh, please. That is so untrue that I can only assume you're lying on purpose.


Hamilton is quite clear that he is talking about all those powers that Congress declares as defining as necessary.
Nonsense -- when Hamilton write, "But these [military] are not the only objects to which the jurisdiction of the Union, in respect to revenue, must necessarily be empowered to extend. It must embrace a provision for the support of the national civil list; for the payment of the national debts contracted, or that may be contracted; and, in general, for all those matters which will call for disbursements out of the national treasury," he is clearly calling for the ability to pay for the expenditures necessary for the legitimate operations of government. How those are defined, and what makes them legitimate, is the Constitution and its list of delegated authorities. He makes no mention of nor allusion to a plenary ability for Congress to spend the taxpayer's dollars willy nilly however it may decide.



That's about as plenary as you get
.

It is limited both by what you refer to as "an inclusive clause" and really by the subject matter of the rest of the amendment. You're the only person I've ever heard make this argument, and I can find no constitutional authority that agrees with it.

Today it pretty much is (most trade is interstate). Wasn't so when the Constitution was drafted. Technology and markets change.
Yes, but "pretty much" does not encompass a totality -- and the law itself has not changed. The federal government may regulate interstate trade. It is supposed to leave non-interstate trade alone. It is supposed to not be involved in local matters that don't involve trade. What you desire is to redefine both "interstate" and "commerce" in such a way that all matters great and small are subject to federal regulation. So much for the doctrine of limited government written about so elequently by both Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist.

How? Under your example reasoning in the Wonderbread example - there is no transaction taking place at the time of the crossing. The transaction
Because a purchaser paid for goods that crossed a state line after the payment was made, or as a result of a payment transaction in which goods or services crossed a state line. When I truck driver is paid to deliver cargo from Misssouri to Indiana, the trade has been interstate. When he rents a hotel room in Indiana, the trade is not interstate (unless you can figure out some way for the hotel to cross state lines).

EITHER


That was your reasoning as to why the wonderbread purchase in the store is "local". And yes, the likelihood of something happening is the very core basis of Constitutionality of laws
.

Nope. The Constitution provides powers based on what the government is allowed to do, not what it is likely to do. Our laws don't say it is illegal for a person to be likely to rob a bank -- it is illegal for that person to actually rob a bank. Our Constitution does not provide for the regulation of trade that is likely to cross state lines -- it provides for the regulation of trade that actually does so.


Consider the same country store you described. What if they put up a sign that said "State Resident's ONLY".... Would that be Constitutional?
Yes. Under what constitutional grounds would it not be allowed?

And the answer is very clearly NO. Because preferential treatment is being given to intra-state vs. inter-state transactions.
No, because that isn't what is happening. States (the elected government of the state) cannot set up interstate trade barriers -- for example Missouri setting an "import tariff" on a beer made in Milwaukee in order to favor the beer made in St. Louis. Merchants can set such limits all they like -- no one can force the bar to carry Milawaukee's Best if the owner and the patrons prefer Michelob Dunkelweissen (BTW, this latter actually exists and is suprisingly good). The store can offer its goods however and to whomever it desires -- Sam's Club doesn't have to allow admittance to non members.

In answer to the question you're about to raise -- yes, this means individual store owners can practice racism. I don't agree with the court's regulation of individual attitudes, nor do I agree that a private enterprise is a "public accomodation."


And so far you have not defined what defines "interstate commerce" without relying on the term itself. I have. but I'll do it again.
Here's what you wrote, "Interstate commerce is any commerce that occurs or is likely to occur between two or more parties from differing states, or any activity that affects markets or capital assets in another state," and now I'll edit it to make it correct. "Interstate commerce is any commerce that occurs two or more parties from differing states."



As to wars... sorry, any military action AGAINST another nation is - under international law - An Act of War. Initiating An Act of War is the same as initiating a War. Don't like it? Take it up with Madison.
Neither statement is true.
 

trapdoor

Governor
So you support using the commerce clause for water and likely air.
That isn't what I said. I said there may be times when the commerce clause legitimately applies to water. There MAY be times when it also applies to air (I'm thinking airlines, here, not power plants). It generally is a poor basis for what might best be termed environmental enforcement.

I am pretty sure that none of the founders would have ever imagined this usage of the commerce clause.
I agree, if we're still talking environmental enforcement, which I think is what you have in mind.

Not one mention of it in any documents that I know of relates their concern that the states on one side of a river would dump raw sewage into the river while the other state put in sewage plants. In other words, this is an example of the nation deciding that this was a huge problem and through legislation signed into law by Congress and the POTUS became a law that was necessary and proper and quite frankly, in keeping with their mandate to support the general welfare of the state and citizens.
General welfare benefits all the states not two of them. General welfare is also constrained by the detail of powers in Article I, Section 8. So there is no "necessary and proper" constitutional authority here. There are probably other ways to get at environmental regulation constituionally, not the least of which is some means of taxation (taxation is an unlimited authority) that forced the transgressing state to pay for its damages. The simply passing a law that rests on no constitutional authority is, no matter how laudable the intent, unconstitutional.

Looks like a slam dunk to me against original intent, quoting the Federalist Papers, mentioning what Madison thought as if it were the Bible etc. etc. etc. So which is it? If it's not mentioned in the minutes taken by Madison of the convention debates, not mentioned in the Federalist Papers (written by just three of the 55 men btw) or decided in courts for a long time, then how could a modern court all of a sudden uphold the legislation? Looks to me like they created a new definition of commerce unknown to the founders....
The only reason that it looks like a slam dunk to you is that apparently misunderstood what I wrote. Commerce moves through the air and on water, and the only regulation I can think of that would have a constitutional impact would be a regulation that involves that commerce.

As for how the courts have upheld the current version of those laws, the answer is quite simple -- the courts ignored the Constitution and responded to political influences.
 
You are trying a bit too hard to keep your ideology intact. Commerce uses water and we breathe air or planes use air? Looks like a very broad definition of what constitutes commerce to me. In fact, it looks like a generational evolution from a strictly mercantile view of commerce in the 1790s to a more expansive view of commerce as commerce grew and the states became more intertwined and numerous. I would argue that what we now call commerce would be a shock to Hamilton or Madison, do you think either of them ever considered the idea that a coal fired plant in Minnesota could be regulated by a committee made of of elected officials from Florida? In the late 1800s, the last carrier pigeon died. Up until then, the flocks of carrier pigeons migrating on the east coast numbered in the billions. We are talking about hordes of them almost blackening the sky. Year by year, hunters killed them in their roosts and they were extinguished. Carrier pigeon meat was eaten in the good restaurants all across the world. Millions of them were munched in high society brunches for decades. There definitely was a national market for carrier pigeons. At some point, someone must have considered the idea that they just might kill the last one one of these days. Wonder why no one thought of using the commerce clause to stop the slaughter?
 

trapdoor

Governor
You are trying a bit too hard to keep your ideology intact. Commerce uses water and we breathe air or planes use air?
Commerce, travelling in barges, uses water (about 200,000 tons a week where I live). Commerce, travelling in aircraft, use air. Are you saying otherwise?

Looks like a very broad definition of what constitutes commerce to me. In fact, it looks like a generational evolution from a strictly mercantile view of commerce in the 1790s to a more expansive view of commerce as commerce grew and the states became more intertwined and numerous.
Only because you are attempting to have me redefine commerce in a way I refuse to do.

I would argue that what we now call commerce would be a shock to Hamilton or Madison, do you think either of them ever considered the idea that a coal fired plant in Minnesota could be regulated by a committee made of of elected officials from Florida?
No-- I don't think they envisioned that. I think, however, that they built a system of government that could encompass a regulation of damages across state lines (there are a number of constitutional ways to accomplish that), and that they achieved a government flexible enough to accommodate new situations via the amendment process.


In the late 1800s, the last carrier pigeon died. Up until then, the flocks of carrier pigeons migrating on the east coast numbered in the billions. We are talking about hordes of them almost blackening the sky. Year by year, hunters killed them in their roosts and they were extinguished. Carrier pigeon meat was eaten in the good restaurants all across the world. Millions of them were munched in high society brunches for decades. There definitely was a national market for carrier pigeons. At some point, someone must have considered the idea that they just might kill the last one one of these days. Wonder why no one thought of using the commerce clause to stop the slaughter?
Thank you for making my case for me. The passenger pigeon, albeit that it was hunted commercially, was not seen as something regulable by the federal government. The commerce clause (and the general welfare clause), were not applied that way until the New Deal era. Now, as you say, every activity is commerce, and all commerce is interstate -- and apparently there is no matter so small that the federal government cannot regulate it. And yes, I think that is the result of a distorted reading of the Constitution that ignores the doctrine of limited government expressed by both Hamilton and Madison.
 
Top