by Gary Wood
In the original intent of our U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 provided enumerated powers for the federal or general government with all other powers remaining with the States or with the People.
One of those enumerated is the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,†which we refer to as the ‘Commerce Clause.’ It seemed like a straight forward power which would help overcome some of the challenges the states were dealing with under the Articles of Confederation. Interstate commerce had become extremely complex with each state setting its own currency and regulations causing significant obstacles to economic transactions between states.
Among the limited functions the state representatives felt the federal government could assist in was to create a regular means for making commercial interactions easier. The 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines regulate;
REG’ULATE, v.t.
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
Among the states referred to interstate activity alone, not intrastate among the people. Intrastate commerce fell under the protection and duty of the 10th Amendment. Additionally, rules imposed on interstate commerce were to be no more than necessary to help transactions take place “in good order.†In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall understood the limited nature of the federal level responsibility, in Gibbons v. Ogden, and the precedent set in this case stood until the mid 1930s.
According to Thomas Woods, Jr and Kevin Gutzman, as written in Who Killed the Constitution;
In 1937, however, the Court abandoned its attempt to set limits to the Commerce Clause power and to enforce theTenth Amendment. No longer would the Court be in the business of drawing a line between the federal and state authority, as it had been intended to do. Instead, it would allow Congress to do almost anything it wanted to do on the basis of the Commerce Clause. (p. 106)
When you think about the many infringements on you, your neighbors, and your states it is a good bet you will be able to track those infringements to some abuse under the usurped authority of today’s Commerce Claws.
When people ask if Obama Care is constitutional career politicians scoff since anything they conceive will be upheld by an out of control system shredding the final bits of either the states or peoples authority to control our commercial dealings. All that has been done with the Commerce Claws, from FDR to BHO, has been done under the pretense of helping us economically.
As our economic freedom diminishes so does our political freedom, they are tied together. The less control we have of one the less control we have of the other. As our political factions gain more direct power over our economy they secure positions of authority. This is why you cannot listen to a debate on Obama Care without hearing how it will impact the 2010 races. Those opposing are doing so merely in hopes of garnering votes while those supporting it are doing it for the same reason. However, each major faction is racing against time as they maneuver toward a day when votes will not be necessary to maintain their positions.
As Milton Friedman stated, “Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.†If we, the people, are to save our freedom in both realms (economic and political) we must demand more than a stop to Obama Care. Stopping health care reform only stops it this time, as we did in the 90s with Hilary Care, and as we did in the 30s when it was considered too far a reach since the factions just succeeded in invoking social security and many other social controls while fitting the claws to a wrong interpretation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Each time it is stopped a little control gets through; think Medicare, Medicaid and more.
The battle this time must be fought against the root problems; bad Supreme Court precedent beyond our votes and states not fulfilling their duties to provide the proper check against Constitutional violations. Each branch of government, in our Federal Republic, is duty bound by oath to nullify the actions of any other branch usurping authority beyond their granted powers. The federal branches were given the fewest powers yet today they are largely controlling our lives.
So, write to your Senators and Representatives, but don’t forget to write to each level. Study our history and learn all you can about the importance of the Tenth Amendment. Then, in 2010 find local candidates who understand their duty to defend the Tenth Amendment while checking the powers of the federal beast. It is time to clip the beasts’ claws.
Gary Wood is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States’ Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. “According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve.”
I've read some of the federalist papers about what they thought that the commerce clause meant and it seemed that they believed that it was to "regulate" commerce as in making it uniform throughout the states, federal, and indian tribes or in other words have a singe trade policy between these entities so that each one could not place trade barriers on the other or to make 'regular' and if the commerce clause does not mean that then what part of the constitution erradicates trade barriers between states if it not the commerce clause itself.
Tim – even though the federalist is just a small part of getting a proper grasp on original intent and meaning, you've got it pretty much right. If you're interested in some further research, Professor's Randy Barnett and Rob Natelson have done some of the best scholarly work on the commerce clause out there… in my opinion, that is…
In a 1993 Notre Dame Law Review, Roger Pilon wrote the following concerning the intent of the Commerce Clause:
"There can be little doubt about the principle purpose of the Commerce Clause. Under the Articles of Confederation, state legislatures had become the dens of special-interest legislation aimed at protecting local manufactures and sellers from out-of-state competitors. The result was a tangle of state-by-state tariffs and regulations that impeded the free flow of commerce among the states, to the detriment of all. Only a national [federal] government could break the logjam. Indeed, the need to do so was one of the primary reasons behind the call for a new constitution.
The Commerce Clause was aimed, then, at giving Congress, rather the states, the power to regulate commerce among the states. The purpose was thus not so much to convey a power ‘to regulate’- in the affirmative sense in which we use the term today- as a power ‘to make regular’ the commerce that might take place among the states.
At the bottom, then, the Commerce Clause was intended to enable Congress to break down state barriers, to prevent states from restricting the free flow of commerce among themselves."
During the debates in the Federal {Constitutional} Convention Oliver Ellsworth stated:
"The power of regulating trade between the States will protect them against each other "
James Madison reiterated this point:
"[P]erhaps the best guard against an abuse of the power of the States on this subject, was the right in the General Government to regulate trade between State and State."
Looks like Mr. Pilon nailed it.
Google "Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC"
I have learned a lot from this website and have begun to look locally for the cure to a runaway federal government. In years past I paid scant attention to my local politics, always voted but never really looked hard at local people.
This website has given me a new direction as I now believe you must approach it from the local level and move up the line to correct many years of abuse to the constitution.