The word â€œcommerceâ€ has wrongly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover every person that moves.
Tag Archives | commerce-clause
James Madison: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”
State efforts to reclaim their jurisdiction are great. But in some respects, the states are still showing signs of apprehension of, and/or undue deference to, the federal government.
It seems clear that Washington today is constitutionally stoned. Only a return to the constitutional balance of federalism â€” of strong, sovereign states that check the overreaching intrusions by the federal government â€” will restore the principles of liberty and prosperity that made this nation the light to the world.
Our opponents would like nothing more than to distract us from the issue of constitutionality. But by refusing to be redirected, we can retain the high ground and dictate the terms of battle, as it were. This will also help to educate and prepare those who believe in limited government to resist not only this act of federal usurpation, but all such acts.
For decades, using a tortured definition of “interstate commerce,” Congress has claimed the authority to regulate, control, ban, or mandate virtually everything – from wheat grown on one’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individualâ€™s own home for the same purpose, to guns manufactured, sold and kept in state boundaries.
Every piece of federal economic regulation from the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) to all of the 1930s New Deal securities and banking law has been rationalized (made “constitutional”) by reference to the commerce clause.
In response to a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Rob Natelson writes: “The claim that the Founding Fathers would have thought the Constitution allows Congress to impose health care mandates is little short of absurd.”
NH Legislators again raise the bar for the 10th Amendment Movement â€“ felony charges proposed for federal agents violating gun rights in New Hampshire
In 1937, the Supreme Court abandoned its attempt to set limits to the Commerce Clause power and to enforce theTenth Amendment. No longer would the Court be in the business of drawing a line between the federal and state authority, as it had been intended to do. Instead, it would allow Congress to do almost anything it wanted to do on the basis of the Commerce Clause.
Let us be clear at the outset that federal involvement in health care (except in a few isolated instances, such as federal employee benefits) certainly violates the Constitution as that document was originally understood.
- Tenther Radio Episode #99: Government Gone Wild
- Tenther Radio Episode #98: Nullification Goes Mainstream
- Tenther Radio Episode #97: The Importance of Decentralization
- Tenther Radio Episode #96: The #NoDrones Movement is Growing
- Tenther Radio Episode #95: Real ID Backlash, and How to Enforce Nullification Bills