Robert Yates, AntiFederalist Paper #17 – Federalist Power Will Ultimately Subvert State Authority

On March 2, 2011, in Robert Yates, by admin
Share
This [new] government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable powers, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section eighth, article first, it is declared, that the Congress shall have power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof. ”
And by the sixth article, it is declared, “that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ”
It appears from these articles, that there is no need of any intervention of the State governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the Constitution and laws of every State are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this Constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. The government, then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.

President reagan, signed it into Law, 11-19-1988; to impose unbelievable burden, on all the people.
This is how…the U. S. Congress…violated Article I, section 1; delegated it's "power to make rules" to the U. S. Courts…since 1911….and travesty set in.

Has anyone…any thoughts about it ?

So, to answer your question we need to find the actual definitions of the words in the time of the Founder and we need to determine the actual normal type of business/commerce/export/import/excise/duties and other facts of the describe clause. Then we can go to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist paper, minutes of the Ratification convention. As an example of the fallacy of using current definitions will become apparent by reading just a few example below. Apply these definitions to the days news and see what sense you can make of it?

CONDESCENDING—Condescending had none of the negative implications it has today. Aristocrats
who showed a proper degree of courtesy to their social inferiors were said to be condescending.
CONVENT—Convent could mean not only a nunnery, but a monastery as well.
CONVERSATION—Any social interaction. Criminal conversation was adultery.
CORDIAL—A drink of hard liquor, often taken for what was supposed to be medicinal purposes.
CORN—As is still the case in Britain, corn meant any grain, including wheat and barley.
CORRESPONDENCE—Not only an interchange of letters, but any sort of relationship.

When you look at it from this angle of "open trade," we have a much more expansive view. All the sudden, we have a potential for some difficult issues.

What if, for example, one state wants to promote its domestic fluorescent light manufacturers and so, enacts a law stating, "In connection with the sale to an individual or business consumer in this state of any incandescent light bulb, there shall be a tax added to the sales price equal to the sum of 50% of the sales price?"

Notice this rule says nothing as regards the fact that the taxed bulbs must come from outside the state? It is, on its face, purely neutral on that issue. Is Congress empowered to prohibit this new state sales tax? Buried in the analysis (when you start looking at the interstate commerce issue) is a tough question….. "What exactly IS interstate commerce? When does it begin? When does it end?

If a manufacturer in one state sells a product to a distributor in another state, clearly, we have interstate commerce. But now that the distributor in the other state is going to sell to grocery stores located within that same state, you would say, "There, we have intrastate commerce."

So, let's see what happens to our sales tax scenario. If the sales tax occurs at the grocery store (consumer level), this will affect demand in the state. The reduction in demand will lead to the in-state distributor needing less to supply and thus, placing fewer orders with the out-of-state manufacturer.

Thus, an act of regulating intrastate commerce by a state can most definitely have an affect of regulating intrastate commerce – although the effect is indirect, it is nonetheless an effect and is all that is needed to allow a state to close off certain trade from other states.

Not so easy, is it?

How do we fix these problems?