Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:31 — 8.7MB)
NOTE: The above was recorded by Michael Boldin at the close of Tenther Radio Episode #31. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.
*******
The United States federal government finds a seemingly endless array of ways to exercise authority it does not rightly possess. But perhaps the widest path to the destruction of state sovereignty winds its way through the Constitution’s commerce clause.
Since the infamous Wickard v. Fliburn case, the feds use the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited intrusion into nearly every corner of American life. From regulating the nation’s entire health care system to waging a “war on drugs,” federal agents wield power over the states and the people via the commerce clause.
Rep. John Yarmuth reluctantly admitted the truth during a radio interview in August 2010. The show host asked the Kentucky Democrat: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate Americans must purchase health insurance.
“It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do,” Yarmuth replied.
Of course, the commerce clause was never intended to grant such sweeping power. It was meant to allow the feds to regulate trade across state lines with some ancillary power to regulate shipping and transportation. That’s it. It didn’t grant the federal government the power to regulate manufacturing or agriculture, and it certainly wasn’t meant to allow the feds to interfere with commerce engaged in strictly within a state’s own borders. James Madison alluded to the limits of the commerce regulating power.
“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
Some states are beginning to fight back against federal intrusion into intrastate commerce. Legislatures in Iowa, Florida and New Hampshire will consider bills during the 2012 session that seek to reestablish the states’ control over commerce within their borders. And the Tenth Amendment Center expects a number of other states to follow suit this year.
House File 380 in Iowa reaffirms that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but the power to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The bill goes on to declare:
All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of this state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of this state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.
If the bill passes into law, any agent attempting to enforce federal law in violation of the act would be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor and subject to appropriate penalties.
The Iowa bill, sponsored by Rep. Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill), was initially filed in Feb. 2011 and will carry over into the 2012 session. Senate File 272, introduced at the same time by Sen. Kent Sorenson, serves as the companion bill.
A second Senate bill, Senate File 385, with 11 co-sponsors, proposes even stricter penalties. It would make it a class D felony to enforce any federal law interfering with intrastate commerce – that’s commerce within Iowa’s borders.
Rep. Matt Caldwell (R-Ft. Meyers) and Sen. Greg Evers (R-Crestview) sponsor the Florida version of the Intrastate Commerce Act. The bills’ language reads similar to Iowa’s, and the Florida act also makes it a felony for any agent to enforce federal law on intrastate commerce within Florida.
The New Hampshire General Court will consider HB1406. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Richard Ockerman (R-Rockingham) and Marc Tremblay (R – Berlin), declares, “all goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.”
The New Hampshire Intrastate Commerce Act does not stipulate penalties for agents attempting to enforce federal law on intrastate commerce.
But the New Hampshire General Court will take up stronger intrastate commerce legislation applying specifically to food grown in the state. HB1650-FN exempts any food grown or produced, and consumed in New Hampshire from federal regulation, providing that “any public servant of the state of New Hampshire as defined by RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a federal act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation upon a foodstuff labeled ‘Made in New Hampshire,’ that is produced commercially or privately in New Hampshire, and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.”
Six legislators have signed on as sponsors of this bill.
Become a member and support the TAC!
And Utah will also consider an agriculture-centric version of the Act – Senate Bill 34 “prohibits federal regulation of an agricultural product that remains in Utah after it is made, grown, or produced in Utah, and addresses the designation of a Utah agricultural product.”
Putting a stop the federal government’s abuse of the commerce clause would fundamentally change the way the feds do business. Intrastate commerce acts establish a beachhead. The states must stand up and say, “No! We will no longer sit back and allow you to push us around!” It is our hope the legislatures in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa will get these bills passed, and that other states will follow suit.
If you want to help get these bills passed, or introduced in your state – go to http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/foursteps/ – for ideas on what you can do right now to help stand up for the constitution and your liberty.
For model Intrastate Commerce Act legislation that you can pass along to your state representatives for consideration, click HERE.
To track intrastate commerce legislation across the U.S., click HERE.
[...] That’s it. It didn’t grant the federal government theRead the rest of this article at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/18/not-everything-is-interstate-commerce/ Click "Home" to find this article in English. Clic "Inicio" para encontrar este artículo en [...]
@RonPaul_2012 BREAKING NEWS!!! THE GOP RACE IS REALLY!!!! RON PAUL VS. THE POLICE STATE!!!! http://t.co/1oPr5Apq
@NC10th Are you interested in being your own boss? Take control now and start making 6k a month in 2 months thenewmoneyjournal .com
Common sense, reason and intelligence comes from the common people of America and not the supposed educated in Law. Law for this reason has no reason in it because it is based on a view of authority for which it does not have and believes it is given.
Those acting as themselves as life in accordance to the preservation and promotion of life are the common by the acts they do towards each other. This in a sense is a common act of decency or a common respect amongst all those living (the act of doing). Common sense is this value because the results of these acts may be viewed and recorded.
It is no wonder the idiots of America have altered the Commerce clause to fit the perversion of themselves which has no common with in it. It stands for no life in its direction, its path a bold dominating effect of take over and very poor control, these effects may also be viewed and recorded as such. The law class or the educated in law are considered the most prominent and educated, yet their own actions defy all such standings and show they lack the luster of good common sense by those simply living as life , doing the acts of life in the direction of preserving and promoting such life.
You could consider all education in law that performs dominance to be the highest crime and ignorance in all of history. In fact it would not surprise me if this was a practice formed by the financiers of history only to protect the pathetic practice for which it fabricated to rule and dominate. All results that can be viewed point to this direction which in turn makes this statement a substantial argument against what I consider to be the farthest act from common sense since life on planet earth.
In fact I am assured as I sit here that this group will be the most prominent to disagree with me, but then I measure by results and not what I make up in my head the difference being.
Thanks for sharing the good news about the aforementioned states addressing the matter of intrastate vs interstate commerce. This goes to the very heart of states’ rightful sovereignty over their own domestic affairs. Especially regarding private markets and public services. Progressive socialist wannabes got their big foot hold in 1913 with passage of the 16th and 17th amendments. The personal income tax gave the federal government power of the purse which they successfully use to exploit the states. To add insult to injury, the 17th stripped state administrators of their voice at the national level. The people had their U.S. and state representatives. Why was a popular vote by each individual citizen necessary for U.S. Senators? Answer: It further empowered the federal government under the guise of democracy.
The federal government has no authority to regulate between the states. “Among” originally meant in a group of objects, whatever. It did NOT mean “between”. Dictionaries controlled by special interest groups have re-written the meanings from the founders’ time.
Federal authority ends with the District of Columbia, territories, the island States of the United States (meaning the federal government’s home – the District of Columbia), and bona fide federal enclaves in which the people forming the states ceded jurisdiction, such as ports, armories, and the like.
Everything the federal government does within and between states is based on fraud, extortion, and multiple other crimes, as each state (meaning the people) is a nation state in and of itself with the federal government given specified duties to protect our union of independent states and the inherent, unalienable rights of the people. hence, for example, the purpose of Article Vi that demands all state governments and all officials, whether of quasi governments created by the state government or of the state government obey the same limitations placed on the federal government that was organized by the Constitution FOR the united States of America. (Not OF, as that denotes the District of Columbia’s corporate government.
This is a great start. The second part is to get back to the intent of the clause to facilitate interstate commerce.
If that is possibly under the loop hole filled and unenforceable current Constitution.
Following Rep. John Yarmuth’s line of reasoning, the U.S. should just quit the farce that we even have a Constitution or rule of law. Why would the Founders even bother writing a Constitution if the Federal Government was going to be all-powerful?
@DMJ That is so true, and it is great way to argue the proper interpretation of all 3 of the Constitutional clauses (there are only 3 right?
Sometimes reasoning for the proper interpretation escapes my old mind, or the sheep will not accept the truth and this “logic” often makes the light bulb go on in their heads.
@amronsomar thank you for all your post and links you really help me b informed without going to 100 diffrent sites
@amronsomar thank you for all your post and links you really help me b informed without going to 100 diffrent sites
@amronsomar thank you for all your post and links you really help me b informed without going to 100 diffrent sites
@amronsomar thank you for all your post and links you really help me b informed without going to 100 diffrent sites
@parko161 Thank You ~I tend to spend “LOTS” of time on here & FB searching articles.I AM ADDICTED
The truth behind the establishment.
As the legal establishment constantly reminds us, they are America. The focus is entirely on them and not on us who deliver to each other products and services which is sustainability. The establishment produces no item of exchange and their only product authority over the common producing individual, the sustainable.
The Declaration of Independence is very clear on the total power as life, this is best represented by acts supporting life. Independence which is liberty is the act of freeing ourselves from attorney types, police state, man made laws and made up false authority.
To combat this you will have to become familiar with you as the deciding factor of all great choice, the true value in all sustainability. That by your acts to produce for one another you create this sustaining factor. That lawyers are a corrupt bunch who produce 0 in exchange but enforce false authority upon you.
It is only when you realize You are an American independent of these hideous acts, when you realize you are all that sustains you, that by such an ability you have the will to defy such a pathetic establishment because you have learned to achieve a true Republic by such acts used to achieve sustainability.
You are the Deciding factor behind all things done if you choose to.
Genuinely,
William Schooler
A Producing American
Great Article. I wrote a very similar piece quite a while ago that provides a review of Wickard v. Filburn, the path to expansion of powers by the feds, and the point where they not only stepped over the line but the actions that have been reversing some of the more glaring expanisons.
It is available here. http://wp.me/P1EoHE-40
@TWLoker thanks for sharing!!
@TWLoker I love people like you. You do the footwork to help others to start the climb towards knowledge.
Knowledge is power and it puts fear in the fear mongering chicken hawks. The emperor is now down to his boxers and will soon be naked for all to see, even though his boxers are made of see-through plastic, but too many still see him as wearing silk.
@TWLoker
I love people like you. You do the footwork to help others to start the climb towards knowledge.
Knowledge is power and it puts fear in the fear mongering chicken hawks. The emperor is now down to his boxers and will soon be naked for all to see, even though his boxers are made of see-through plastic, but too many still see him as wearing silk boxers.
They’ve been eroding this right since Wickard v. Filburn.
Actually Lisa they have been eroding it since McCauliff v. MD and it really hit the fan in the 1860′s during Lincoln’s war of northern aggression
As a Yankee schoolboy, I used to take offense at the very notion that Lincoln was anything less than a saint. As an educated adult…I realize that his tenure was one of the most destructive to liberty in the history of America. Far from being “The Great Emancipator”, in reality he shackled our entire nation in irons from which we have yet to break free.
As a Yankee schoolboy, I used to take offense at the very notion that Lincoln was anything less than a saint. As an educated adult…I realize that his tenure was one of the most destructive to liberty in the history of America. Far from being “The Great Emancipator”, in reality he shackled our entire nation in irons from which we have yet to break free.
Lincoln was a tyrant.
Lincoln was a tyrant.
McCulloch v. Maryland, case decided in 1819 by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealing specifically with the constitutionality of a Congress-chartered corporation, and more generally with the dispersion of power between state and federal governments. After the First Bank of the United States (1791) had folded in 1811 due to a lack of congressional support, inflation in the years following the War of 1812 compelled Congress to establish (1816) a new national bank. The Second Bank of the United States was authorized by Congress to help control the unregulated issuance of currency by state banks. Many continued to oppose the bank’s constitutionality, and Maryland set an example by imposing a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. When the U.S. branch bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes, Maryland brought suit for collection from the bank. Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the uncontested opinion, gave trenchant expression to the doctrine of implied powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” The chartering of a bank, according to the Court, was a power implied from the power over federal fiscal operations. Because the state cannot impede constitutional federal laws, the tax was voted unconstitutional. One of the most important decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall’s opinion called for a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government. The case became the legal cornerstone of subsequent expansions of federal power.
McCulloch v. Maryland, case decided in 1819 by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealing specifically with the constitutionality of a Congress-chartered corporation, and more generally with the dispersion of power between state and federal governments. After the First Bank of the United States (1791) had folded in 1811 due to a lack of congressional support, inflation in the years following the War of 1812 compelled Congress to establish (1816) a new national bank. The Second Bank of the United States was authorized by Congress to help control the unregulated issuance of currency by state banks. Many continued to oppose the bank’s constitutionality, and Maryland set an example by imposing a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. When the U.S. branch bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes, Maryland brought suit for collection from the bank. Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the uncontested opinion, gave trenchant expression to the doctrine of implied powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” The chartering of a bank, according to the Court, was a power implied from the power over federal fiscal operations. Because the state cannot impede constitutional federal laws, the tax was voted unconstitutional. One of the most important decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall’s opinion called for a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government. The case became the legal cornerstone of subsequent expansions of federal power.
Every US Citizen has the right to speak up…write an e-mail to our president, congress, if we don’t personally tell then what we think, they will continue to make our country even more of a mess!
Every US Citizen has the right to speak up…write an e-mail to our president, congress, if we don’t personally tell then what we think, they will continue to make our country even more of a mess!
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” – Groucho Marx
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” – Groucho Marx
What says the Tenth Amendment Center on this?http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/93121/judge-says-federal-law-pre-empts-states-effort-to/
What says the Tenth Amendment Center on this?http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/93121/judge-says-federal-law-pre-empts-states-effort-to/
Matt Yezuita – this is a really good one to explore, thanks for asking. Without knowing full details, it’s impossible to give our best opinion on it, but at first glance this is another example of the feds claiming complete authority over an entire industry, and entire sphere – where none exists. This, of course, is not a value judgement on whether the VT regulations were “good” or “bad” – just on who constitutionally has the authority to make those good or bad decisions. We might look into it further.
Matt Yezuita – this is a really good one to explore, thanks for asking. Without knowing full details, it’s impossible to give our best opinion on it, but at first glance this is another example of the feds claiming complete authority over an entire industry, and entire sphere – where none exists. This, of course, is not a value judgement on whether the VT regulations were “good” or “bad” – just on who constitutionally has the authority to make those good or bad decisions. We might look into it further.
When the Feds arrested the people at the health food store in Venice, CA for selling raw milk, which was/is not against the law in California, they should have been put in jail for violating the California Constitution.
One of the best ways to lower the national debt is to kick all the Federal agents out of all the states and then let the sheriffs do the enforcement work, but only according to the state laws. More and more county sheriffs are waking up to how they are deemed by the protect the citizens of the states against the tyranny of the hired whore guns of the Federal Government.
The lies and deception have gone too far. It went too far the first time the Federal Government did something un-Constitutional. Stop the bleeding and put the Federal Government in it’s place, an agent of the US People and a servant of the US States, not the other way around.
When the Feds arrested the people at the health food store in Venice, CA for selling raw milk, which was/is not against the law in California, they should have been put in jail for violating the California Constitution.
One of the best ways to lower the national debt is to kick all the Federal agents out of all the states and then let the sheriffs do the enforcement work, but only according to the state laws. More and more county sheriffs are waking up to how they are deemed to be the protectors of the citizens of the states against the tyranny of the hired whore guns of the Federal Government.
The lies and deception have gone too far. It went too far the first time the Federal Government did something un-Constitutional. Stop the bleeding and put the Federal Government in it’s place, an agent of the US People and a servant of the US States, not the other way around.
@JamesE You hit the proverbial bull’s eye dead on when you said ” … the Federal Government [is] an agent of the US People and … States, not the other way around.”. Progressive socialist wannabe demagogues have far too long overreached their enumerated powers violating and perverting the union’s charter entrusted to their care.
[...] Process, a Neglected Tool? Effort in US to Commerce Regulation?http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/18/not-everything-is-interstate-commerce/ A wedge for unbridled control of the free market–the commerce clause, or misinterpretations [...]
@TenthAmendment Bravo, but state law makers must get a back bone 1st
@doverby1331 some have it, many don’t. They work ok sometimes with a good pushin’!
I don’t read commentary regarding the commerce (intra-state) that goes on AFTER a manufactured product arrives inside the state border. For example, a gun is manufactured at a plant within another state. The gun then travels interstate (shipped) to the recipient state and arrives inside the border of that recipient state and gets delivered to the gun dealer. It would seem to me that the INTERSTATE relationship requirement ends with the delivery to the dealer. It them follows that the dealer has the responsibility to conform to the Federal law requirements for interstate receipt of goods.
Thereafter dealer sells gun to buyer who resides within that recipient state. It seems to me that this particular relationship (dealer to buyer) would fall under INTRASTATE as the transaction took place totally within the confines of the state.
Following this, can it be said that these new FFA’s enacted by state legislatures have total oversight over these apparent intrastate dealer to buyer transactions? A careful reading of the existing laws in a handful of tates shows that the lawmakers ignored this scenario and focused only on firearms “produced/manufactured” inside of state.
So this question needs to be answered by somebody. It’s glaringly obvious to me.
@danny313 The question is why does the federal government regulate interstate
@danny313 The question is, why does the federal government regulate interstate and foreign commerce in the first place? Possibly to ensure fair trade practices between states and/or countries? Once a product legally enters a state’s boundaries, it’s no longer the federal government’s business anymore than those products you bought and took home as your property to use or sell within your state. Not unless the federal government makes it their affair for the purpose of their own self-empowerment.
@West Texan@danny313
It’s as I suspected. The political cowards who drafted these FFA’s in the various legislatures sidestepped the above issue and played it safe! They should’ve added in the language of “ALL FIREARMS SOLD BY GUN DEALERS TO BUYERS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE”. If in fact the interstate relationship ends at the dealer. Can you or anyone else confirm this? If this is fact then I would look to contact the lawmakers and ask them why they sidestepped this, requiring all residents to submit to a Fed check on purchase. I feel that even if there was doubt these things need to be tested in the courts and this is one good way to do it. Enact the legislation, make it law and just do it! When/if challenged then deal with it.
@West Texan and @Danny313
The current issues with the Commerce Clause going back to Wickard v. Filburn create a real problem. The Federal government has been using Wickard to expand reach for yearsw. One example of their step to far was the Gun Free School Zones issue. In it the Supreme Court Rulled that the argument that they could regulate firearms because the purchase was interstate fell apart. But this has been in contravention to Wickard.
The reason they lost the Gun Free School Zones case was very specific to the argument they made at the time. If they want to make the argument, as they did in Filburn, that all gun sales were interstate and as such needed to be under federal regulation they could have succeeded. Instead they really over-reached just to make a point. They don’t try again now because of the lobying power of the NRA not the clairity of the case law. We need to have the supreme court overturn Wickard.
You can read a full summary here: http://wp.me/P1EoHE-40
@TWLoker@west@danny313Overturning Wickard would be monstrously difficult; there is a legal concept of ‘stare decisis’, i..e., a decision made is prettty much settled. It’s sort of a legal concept of inertia; a mass a rest stays at rest, unlesss acted upon by a greater force. Also, what would that open the court’s to as a results; virtually countless lawsuits, which, however correct, would tie up the entire judiciary for decades. (All federal gun control laws, rules, and regulation alone could take decades; also, justices in other courts might decide to rule other than what SCOTUS does; look at Illinois and DC after the Chicago and Heller decisions, still disobeying SCOTUS’S decisions and with judges voting against the SCOTUS rulings).
@Rob1911a1 @TWLoker @danny313@west
I really agree with you in principle, as to the difficulty. I see the solution to this being a “collective” of states getting together and just “doing it” under the 10th amendment.They should all amend their FFA’s and include language relative to my original post. The interstate relationship ends at the firearms dealer and intrastate picks up from dealer to resident customer. This makes sense when you consider that wickard v filburn as it exists now should be a problem for the current FFA’s that states have enacted even though the rule is “made and used” inside the border. This “made and used” inside border is no different that the corn grown inside border within wickard. YET, have the Feds moved against the states regarding the FFA’s? I haven’t seen anything yet??? I believe the real power is in numbers of states working together. To save time, I believe states should simply enact one piece of legislation declaring ALL unconstitutional acts wil be investigated then nullified without any further warning or notice. Hey, the money flows first to the states (as originally intended) then to the feds. Let them submit a bill to the states! And if unconstitutional, NO PAYMENT! The states keep the money!
@danny313 @TWLoker@west
I agree completely; the problem is in coordinating 50 state legislatures (many of which are still under commy/liberal control (CA, NY. MA, CT, RI, DC, etc). This is a long fight. As for money going first to the states and then the Federal gov, that’s not the way Federal taxation and distrubution work. The taxes we pay (Federal) go to DC and are then parsed out to the states. State taxes are, of course, internal.
Yes would be interesting to know your take if you do look into it further. An out of state entity that has direct impact on the health of the citizens of the state being over-ruled by the feds is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.
Yes would be interesting to know your take if you do look into it further. An out of state entity that has direct impact on the health of the citizens of the state being over-ruled by the feds is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.
I’m not familiar with Wickard v Filburn but accept that it advances “their” interests related to interstate. BUT, here you say that within the “GFSZ” the case fell apart. The question is why did it fall apart? You say it was case specific. It may be that it was in contravention to Wickard but again…..it fell apart! And I say that this issue I brought in my original post REQUIRES that careful minds get together and bring a CAREFULLY prosecuted case for all commerce inside the border to be INTRASTATE. And there is good reason to do this as a reading of Willard v Filburn shows that it was an absurd decision. And Justice Thomas in GFSZ demonstrated his consideration of “Interstate Commerce” is outside the Federal boundary.
I think this issue is ripe and ready but again, careful minds need to collaborate on a new case brought.
[...] Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce” [...]
Wickard VS Filburn (I am working from memory, so forgive if errors abound) concerned a farmer in the 30s growing corn for his own use and/or local sale. The government prosecuted him, misusing the Commerce Clause as the basis of its decision. This goes higher, though; FDR, in his reach for any imperial Executive Branch, basically told SCOTUS that if they didn’t vote as he wanted, he would appoint ten more justices (there is NO set number of justices; 9 has just become traditional) who would vote the way he wanted, so that at worst he’d win court decision 10 to 9! FDR, far from being a great president, was merely a continuation of Lincoln – also a terrible president – who envisioned the Federal government as supreme over the states. The hubris of these two presidents is what has led us to where we are today. (Seven states had peacefully seceded under President Buchanan; Lincoln forced the civil war, not to free blacks, who he considered subhuman, but to force the Federal Power as supreme).
There are so many provisions of the constitution that the states themselves are not obeying that has allowed for the federal government to do as it pleases. The first and foremost is the states failures to obey article 1 section 10 that forbids the use (making) of anything but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts. The states have allowed themselves to be overthrown by allowing the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, to print counterfeit ‘money’ and pass it around. The states should be prosecuting the Federal Reserve’s owners for so many countless crimes. The other thing is that the states should not allow secret societies, i.e. freemasonry, to be the shadow government. These people hiding in the ‘shadows’ should be outed and prosecuted. Until this is done there can be no going forward.
The problem with laws like those mentioned above is that if they have no penalty then they have no affect. A law without penalty is no law. This is the problem with the constitution. It has no penalty clause and in essence has no affect/ meaning to the criminals that hide behind it.
The states that pretend to pass legislation against the feds are just giving lip service to the public if they do not enforce their so-called laws. This itself is just an act of deception and should demonstrate that you really have no government protecting you. Government exists to perpetuate itself. Government was invented by organized crime. Government itself is corporate fascism. I believe we would be better off without this organized crime ring that we call ‘government. I say abolish it. Now watch the attacks from government shills/ employees begin.
There are so many provisions of the constitution that the states themselves are not obeying that has allowed for the federal government to do as it pleases. The first and foremost is the states failures to obey article 1 section 10 that forbids the use (making) of anything but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts. The states have allowed themselves to be overthrown by allowing the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, to print counterfeit ‘money’ and pass it around. The states should be prosecuting the Federal Reserve’s owners for so many countless crimes. The other thing is that the states should not allow secret societies, i.e. freemasonry, to be the shadow government. These people hiding in the ‘shadows’ should be outed and prosecuted. Until this is done there can be no going forward.
The problem with laws like those mentioned above is that if they have no penalty then they have no affect. A law without penalty is no law. This is the problem with the constitution. It has no penalty clause and in essence has no affect/ meaning to the criminals that hide behind it.
The states that pretend to pass legislation against the feds are just giving lip service to the public if they do not enforce their so-called laws. This itself is just an act of deception and should demonstrate that you really have no government protecting you. Government exists to perpetuate itself. Government was invented by organized crime. Government itself is corporate fascism. I believe we would be better off without this organized crime ring that we call ‘government. I say abolish it. Now watch the attacks from government shills/ employees begin.
There is also the problem with the Supremacy Clause. States can pass all the restrictions they desire on the Federal government, but probably most of these restrictions will be struck down by the Supremacy Clause.
The problem goes also to the heart of whether we are going to have a unified country or whether we are going to be something akin to the European Union. The real problem is the size of the country itself, which is far bigger geographically and far bigger in terms of population than it was when the Constitution was passed.
But I don’t think the tenth amendment can really mean much any more. So much of what we do has impacts on interstate commerce, even what purports to be intrastate commerce. In today’s world, with trade as it is, almost no business is exclusively intrastate. There are so many tiny things that depend on trade with other states and with other countries down to what you send by FedEx.. And so many businesses depend on federal support directly or indirectly.
Curiously though, the question of in personam jurisdiction is quite archaic in this regard. A corporation can do all kinds of business in a state, and still avoid being haled into court there.
Still, i’ve yet to hear commentary regarding that point i alluded to within my original post. Again, and using example of a firearm…it is manufactured within one state and shipped to the purchaser (a dealer) within another state. It seems to me that is where the INTERSTATE relationship ends. Where it crosses the border and arrives at it’s destination. Thereafter, a resident of that state makes purchase of that gun from that gun dealer within same state. I believe that transaction falls under INTRASTATE. Or, is someone saying that only when/if the FORM of the product or goods CHANGES, AFTER it arrives at its initial destination, then in that case it is INTRASTATE?
@danny313 How do you decide what the final destination of the gun is? The gun may be around for centuries. This may work for perishable items but I doubt it would work for durable ones.
@davidgmillsatty
You decide the issue relative to the terms INTERSTATE/INTRASTATE. Interstate is from outside the border to a point inside the border. That concludes the relationship. It’s the first stop inside the border of recipient state. Thereafter, everything else that happens within the border of recipient state is INTRASTATE. This is clear to me.
Still, i’ve yet to hear commentary regarding that point i alluded to within my original post. Again, and using example of a firearm…it is manufactured within one state and shipped to the purchaser (a dealer) within another state. It seems to me that is where the INTERSTATE relationship ends. Where it crosses the border and arrives at it’s destination. Thereafter, a resident of that state makes purchase of that gun from that gun dealer within same state. I believe that transaction falls under INTRASTATE. Or, is someone saying that only when/if the FORM of the product or goods CHANGES, AFTER it arrives at its initial destination, then in that case it is INTRASTATE?
Interstate commerce is both natural and necessary. Congress and the Courts cannot impede this.This is a matter for the states.There is also a scotus ruling giving the states say in interstate commerce in the 19th century,ie,the decision is from the 19th century.