Comments on: To “regulate” Commerce means more than to “make it regular”

By: dissentingj

dissentingj — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:28:43 +0000

@TenthAmendment Only Justice Thomas supports that narrow view of commerce. He is the only justice in Supreme Court history to do so.

By: Peter Fithian

Peter Fithian — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:28 +0000

This is why I’m a Libertarian. Conservatives just don’t want to give up that federal power to regulate morality…

By: Bilovisso Sanspoul

Bilovisso Sanspoul — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:28 +0000

Abolish the clause, which has been abused to no end as an excuse for totalitarian government.

By: Scott O. Smith

Scott O. Smith — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:27 +0000

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I Sec 8).

It seems logical and reasonable to me that “among the several States” refers to maintaining a fair and equitable trade system between but not within the several states.

By: Scott Alan Harper

Scott Alan Harper — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:25 +0000

Whatever it means it doesn’t come close to the meaning our Supreme Court has twisted it into in the last 70 years.

By: James Dillman

James Dillman — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:25 +0000

Disagree! The Constitution itself uses the words regulate, rules, govern, laws, separately and for different reasons. If the intent to govern or control commerce it would say Govern, or Control–

What does the phrase “well regulated militia” mean? — It means a well facilitated militia. Not a militia tightly controlled by the Federal Government, but simply well armed, well trained, and very capable. Well facilitated.

Further, it’s not very likely the Commerce Clause could be honestly construed to mean “Congress could use that power for any reason not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution” since for general purposes the Constitution is designed to limit the power of the Federal Government and reserve rights and powers to the states and to the people. — This can be read in the letter from Jefferson to Washington concerning the Central Bank, where such a power is discussed only in the case of the survival of the Federal government, ie essential to the maintenance of the Federal Government.

Additionally, there is no reason whatsoever for the Federal Government to control or manipulate or govern commerce within a state, and therefore would have little reason to control, manipulate, or govern commerce between the states, except as facilitator.

By: Ronald Frank

Ronald Frank — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:24 +0000

that was in my humble opinion meant to only serve to protect the property of one citizen in one state from being intercepted en-route to its destination in another state just as the Navy is to protect the Shipping of goods to other Nations and the protecting of American Citizens on American Cruse Ships et. al.

By: Kimberly Boldt

Kimberly Boldt — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:23 +0000

To put it more simply, Congress only has to power to keep interstate commerce “regular”. The reason for this, is during that time, some states were charging tariffs on goods coming in from another state, or actually blocking movement of goods into their states. So in order to prevent trade wars between states, and to keep goods moving freely through the states, Congress was given to power to act as a referee to settle disputes between the states regarding trade and commerce.

By: Dan Donovan

Dan Donovan — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:22 +0000

only when it does not interfere with his talibanisation of the US Cheryl.

By: Cheryl Tracy

Cheryl Tracy — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:34:20 +0000

Rick Perry strongly supports the 10th Amendment!