Comments on: Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce”

By: Bruce Baron Barron

Bruce Baron Barron — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:18:31 +0000

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.

By: danny313

danny313 — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:37:39 +0000

@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.

By: davidgmillsatty

davidgmillsatty — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:11:55 +0000

@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.

By: danny313

danny313 — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:31:51 +0000

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?

By: danny313

danny313 — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:31:51 +0000

By: davidgmillsatty

davidgmillsatty — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:35:12 +0000

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.

By: davidgmillsatty

davidgmillsatty — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:26:35 +0000

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.

By: anticriminals

anticriminals — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:00:10 +0000

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.

By: anticriminals

anticriminals — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:00:10 +0000

By: Rob1911a1

Rob1911a1 — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:31:23 +0000

@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.