Comments on: Reclaiming Commerce

By: Mario E. Porrata

Mario E. Porrata — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:47:27 +0000

Just a short note on the P&N clause. It would be a tremendous contradiction to interpret this clause as a general grant of power to the Congress. The constitution was created precisely to limit the powers of a central government. Otherwise, the constitution would have never been. A powerful central government was simply a NO, NO, NO.
And to reinforce this basic foundation, the Bill of Rights was being formed while the debate over the Constitution was taking place and the Tenth Amendment was explicitely written into the Bill, following the wide reaching Ninth Amendment.

By: JiminAZ

JiminAZ — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:58:04 +0000

Here is the de facto explanation over the original meaning to regulate commerce which was done through taxes alone:
http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress…

By: dubya

dubya — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 05:50:24 +0000

*no such thing

By: dubya

dubya — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 05:48:08 +0000

What ever the definition of "regulate", it must be the same when applied to commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the tribes. Thus, if the commerce clause gives Congress the power to limit the amount of wheat a farmer in Ohio can grow, then it gives Congress the power to limit the amount of wheat that can be grown by a farmer in Saskatchewan. But then, it does not such thing.

By: Frank DeMartini

Frank DeMartini — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 01:04:46 +0000

The arrgument to use Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate Interstate Commerce as a means to allow the Federal Government to control all commerce has run its course. The state of California and now a few other states, including most recently Arizona, are taking this argument head on with their marijuana laws. The next item will be Obamacare. This will be the battle that us Tenth Amendment people must win. If so, then nullification will become the power that the Founding Fathers always believed it will be. Our website: www.hollywoodrepublican.net has taken this position repeatedly.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:16:34 +0000

Wow, this is the most intelligent and non-flaming comments section I have ever come across. I applaud you all.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:06:13 +0000

Ok I have to give credit for all the quotes that I took from your posts that I used to condense to what I believe should be the main focus of the argument against the usurpers. Every time they appear to be applying the Kaopectate they should have a bottle of Ex-lax busted over their heads… figuratively speaking of course. They should be given no room to argue that "to regulate" was used as a "restriction" such as I believe was used in argument that the Feds could make restrictions regarding slave ownership.. or something to that effect…. I know that it was after the original application of "to regulate commerce" was it used in a restrictive sense. This is where the corruption of the Clause began. Pleas correct me or clarify where this corruption entered the scene.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:05:43 +0000

"Congress was simply granted the power to make regular… commerce between the several States." "the word regulate itself has a specific meaning.["to make regular"] It does not…[at all]…mean tax, or prohibit or ban or mandate"[as] "the intent of the commerce clause was to prevent the states from imposing tariffs["constipation"] and quotas on each other"… "The states were, in essence, putting up roadblocks[with Kaopectate] to[constipate the] trade by the people of various states, and the commerce["Ex-lax"]clause was included, for a major part, to prevent the individual states from doing that and ensuring that people of the several states could trade with each other".

By: jbdollar

jbdollar — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:07:31 +0000

This action is the only real way to stop Federal tyranny. No matter how may "Tea Party" candidates we send to DC, it is still the monster that can only be slain by the sword of States Rights.

By: JohnLock

JohnLock — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:58:41 +0000

Michael and Rob,

thank you for all the work you do; if people like you can educate us in the general public maybe just maybe we can claw the power from a usurping Federal Government and return it to the States and then to the People.

Judges are not granted any powers to create, alter, enforce, or change any laws or regulations – these powers have been usurped using the theory of case law (one built upon another or lie upon lie.). Case law can not trump the Constitution without ending the concept of the Rule – by – Law and using the Rule – by – Man. The rule by man system has failed ever time throughout history and is failing in America as I write.

Rob, thank you for your new book, I have just started studying it (not just reading) in the first 50 pages I have read things that I never read anywhere else in my 67 years on this earth. I will email you my new understanding after much time and effort.

Thank you both for you are the future of our Republic.