To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

So reads Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.   If you are not already familiar with this clause, please take a moment to look carefully at those few words,

To regulate Commerce

• with foreign Nations
• and among the several States
• and with the Indian Tribes

This really isn’t very complicated.  Even those of us who are not lawyers can probably manage to understand what these sixteen words and two commas mean.   What rational person, starting with those words, would conclude that they delegate to congress the power to limit the amount of wheat that a farmer grows on his own farm to feed to his own livestock?  If those words had been intended to regulate an individual’s use of his own property on his own property, wouldn’t it have been simpler to just say “To regulate anything anywhere”?   It’s an absurd claim.  It’s an outrageous abuse of language.  It’s the law.

Many people are familiar with Wickard v. Filburn.  In 1941, Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn was charged with exceeding his wheat allotment as determined by the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA).  Filburn argued that the excess wheat was fed to his own livestock, thus never left his property and was not subject to regulation under Article 1, Section 8, clause 3.  This is a logically indisputable argument to anyone except a federal official.  However, the supreme court ruled against Filburn.  Wikipedia excerpts the following from the decision,

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production,’ ‘consumption,’ or ‘marketing’ is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it…. But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’ (emphasis mine)

So in this often discussed case, our federal supreme court managed to find it Constitutional for congress to regulate an activity that is quite obviously not even commerce, let alone Commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes.

A similar chapter of abuse of the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause is found in Pennsylvania’s own history.  In 1954, Joseph Blattner, of Center Square in Worcestor township of Montgomery County, grew 24 acres of wheat for feeding of his own hens.  His limit, as determined by the AAA was 16 acres, so he was fined for the 8 “excessive” acres.  Blattner and a number of his contemporaries filed suit to enjoin the federal government from interfering with the plaintiff’s sale of produce, purchase of wheat or raising of grain for feed.

In 1955, the Freeman wrote,

The basis of the suit was in the fact that none of the Blattner farm produce — grain, chickens, or eggs — was involved in interstate commerce, the regulation of which provides an all-covering canopy under which Washington legislates and controls.

…

One of [Blattner's] attorney Weaver’s strongest arguments is his declaration that the Agricultural Adjustment Act is class legislation, in that “it takes property from one class, the raisers of poultry, and gives it to another class, the big growers of wheat.”

In 1954, the Victoria Advocate wrote,

Blattner demands that the government be enjoined from preventing him from raising his usual crops on his own land.  He has been fined $179.20 as a penalty for raising wheat in excess of government allotments.  He contends that he needs the 24 acres of wheat he sowed to feed 6,000 laying hens.  He says the government is taking his property without due process of law.

And the Sarasota Herald-Tribune wrote,

In the absense of the usual gobbledegook this is a very simple problem, now isn’t it?  All farmer Blattner asks is that he not be pestered by the government while trying to run his farm in his own way — a way that had been proper and legal until we became involved in great wars….

And some farmers are at last seeing the light.  They see a scheme which started out with about one control for each advantage slowly merging into one where there will ultimately be a dozen controls for each advantage.  And they are beginning to envision a time when not even feed for their chickens can be grown without government consent.

The Freeman also cites Weaver, Blattner’s attorney, as saying,

If this Court gives the Federal Government absolute control over this non-subsidy taking farmer, it is the same as saying: “The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are hereby repealed.  The Federal Government now has full control over the individual and his property” in every activity in all states of this Union.

Ultimately, Blattner’s complaint was dismissed and that dismissal was upheld by the supreme court in 1955.  History has proven Weaver’s argument to be exactly right.  When regulating commerce among the several states is interpreted to mean regulating non-commerce activity confined to an individual’s property, it can be interpreted to mean any power whatsoever…  Even the power to force an individual to buy health insurance.  We no longer have a limited government.

In addition to the abuse of language required to twist the commerce clause to cover the AAA in these circumstances, something else evidenced in Blattner is the concept of rent seeking.   Rent seeking happens when large businesses ally themselves with government to promote regulation which will eliminate competitors from the market place.  At the same time Blattner was being prohibited from growing wheat on his own property for use by his own livestock, his largest farm competitors were being subsidized in order to promote bigger crops.  We see similar rent seeking behavior from the tobacco industry today.  It is also likely that the health insurance industry now has similar goals in mind.  Pennsylvania still has a strong agricultural industry, but how much stronger would it be if this selective pressure had not been levied by the federal government on behalf of the large farming interests?

Farmer Blattner and his small group of contemporaries fought a battle which affected all of the small Pennsylvania farmers and they apparently fought it without the aid of Pennsylvania’s state officials.  In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote,

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. (emphasis mine)

And in Federalist No. 51, he wrote,

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.

It didn’t work that way for Blattner, did it?  Pennsylvania was duty bound to interpose itself on farmer Blattner’s behalf in defense of the plain sense and intention of the Constitution.  Why didn’t that happen?  I haven’t found that answer, but we now have 55 years of history telling us the consequences of the state’s failure.  The state left farmer Blattner flapping in the wind against an onslaught from the federal machine.  As a result, countless small Pennsylvania farmers have paid a price.  May we learn from history and demand better from our own state officials.

Today, happily, there are several Tenth Amendment battles being waged among the people, the states and the federal government.  Some of the fiercest have to do with the Intolerable Act of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In one such challenge, according to this video, the Obamacare Class Action (OCA) suit is also directly challenging the ridiculous precedent which has been established by the courts for interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.  At this moment, 344 Pennsylvanians have signed on to be plaintiffs.  This is a tall order, but if the OCA suit succeeds, it will replace some of the Tenth Amendment’s original teeth.  Teeth which were long ago extracted by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and subsequent supreme court decisions.

Steve Palmer is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

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.

Various states have passed legislation, collectively referred to as “Firearms Freedom Acts.” Though they may vary in the details, a common thread in these acts seems to be that a state considers a firearm to be within its jurisdiction if it is manufactured within the state.

The obvious reason for this common thread is that if a gun entered from another state, the argument that it falls within federal jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause can be invoked. However, such an argument would be incorrect.

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Just because a gun crosses state lines does not mean it did so as a part of commerce. Many people move from state to state and take their belongings, including guns, with them. This is not commerce.

Secondly, there is a temporal issue raised by assuming any gun that has come from another state is within the ambit of federal regulatory jurisdiction. As stated, the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce. But what if a gun entered a state as part of interstate trade in say, 1980, and here it is 2010? The gun is no longer the subject of any act of interstate commerce and has not been for 30 years. It is specious, at best, for anyone to believe that any product that ever was the subject of interstate commerce forever remains the subject of federal regulatory control.

Jurisprudence has evolved from asserting federal jurisdiction over “commerce among the several states,” as intended, to anything “affecting commerce among the several states.” There are legitimate reasons for the desire of the federal government to try to extend the reach of its jurisdiction in this manner. There are many scenarios in which purely intrastate activities can thwart the ability of Congress to exert its authority over interstate commerce. The possibilities are so many that even the founders might admit that intrastate activities can effectively frustrate the original intent to confer on Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

However, just because the federal government might experience frustration in wielding the power conferred on it does not mean the federal government can unilaterally change the construct of its power. In such cases, amendment is the process which was designed to remedy such problems.

What the federal government has done is to effectively re-write the Constitution to expand its authority and dispense with its burden to show it is operating within the legitimate confines of its authority. By construing Congress’ power to regulate things which affect interstate commerce, Congress does not have to concern itself with whether the thing it seeks to regulate is actually the subject of interstate commerce.

For example, some scholars have noted that Congress could not effectively regulate things if it had to become entangled in the almost impossible process of proving that the thing it seeks to regulate was the subject of interstate commerce. In short, a person seeking to avoid federal regulation could easily frustrate regulators by demanding, “Prove these carrots, shoes, flowers, etc. came from within another state.” In addition, what if XYZ Corp. produces widgets in Alabama and is moving them to its warehouse in Mississippi, where it will offer them for sale there? Is movement, without a transfer of title, commerce? Whether it is, should be, or should not be, here, we can easily see the problem is complex.

Undeniably, these issues would put a heavy burden on the federal government if it had to comply with the law as written, since, as the proponent asserting its jurisdiction, the burden is always on it to prove by preponderance every fact essential to its claim that it has jurisdiction. Without being able to trace things and to know the specifics of the transactions, if any, in which they are engaged, the federal government would lose its case.

But isn’t that what due process is all about? If a person has a claim against another person, or if the government has a claim against another person, common notions of due process have always held that the former has the burden of proof. The mere fact that the burden of proof is difficult, if not impossible, to meet in certain cases should not offer an excuse to ignore the burden and re-write the rules without following proper procedures.

In summary, to the extent the federal government might have difficulty in a great many cases to demonstrate its jurisdiction over things alleged to be the subject of interstate commerce, this does not mean the federal government, in the absence of Constitutional amendment, can simply restate its jurisdiction to make it extend to all things which affect interstate commerce. Had this been the scope of power granted to it, the Constitution could have been written that way. But it was not.

In reclaiming their proper jurisdiction, state legislators need to take heed that their role is to jealously guard their jurisdiction and to protect it from federal overreach. By so doing, the goal of protecting their citizens from federal excesses is served.

Accordingly, state legislators need to make sure they do not assume significant portions of their jurisdiction away. In the instance of Firearms Freedom Acts, there is no reason to assume that if a gun originates from another state, it is automatically the subject of federal jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The point of origin of a thing does not mean it is part of commerce.

Therefore, there is no logical reason why states enacting Firearms Freedom Acts should claim jurisdiction over only those guns which are manufactured in their states. States should be exercising jurisdiction over guns if (1) they are in the state, and (2) they are not currently engaged in a transaction that constitutes commerce between a person of the state and a person of another state.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is a practicing attorney in Houston. He graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law in 1993 and was licensed that year.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

New Hampshire attorney E.F. Nappen writes that the Firearms Freedom Acts being introduced and enacted in various states are subject to ” The Achilles Heels of the Firearms Freedom Act.”

He argues that the inclusion of NFA (National Firearms Act) items (e.g., suppressors or short-barreled rifles) in the asserted exemption from federal authority will cause the Acts to fail in court because the NFA regulates under federal tax power, not federal commerce clause power.

Of course Nappen is correct to assert that getting the permission of federal judges in approval of the Acts will be a difficult exercise. The federal government (including its judicial branch) doesn’t surrender power readily.

As the author of the original Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) that is being cloned around the Nation, I’ve long known that litigating the MFFA would be a chancy proposition. But, I believe, there is more to hope for than Nappen credits.

Addressing Nappen’s concern about NFA items, it is true that the NFA purports to be founded in the power given to Congress in the Constitution to tax. However, there are two sorts of taxes: 1) Those enacted and implemented primarily to raise revenue, and 2) those enacted and implemented to affect commerce.

The federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition is clearly the former sort, since it raises millions of dollars the feds dole out to the states for wildlife management. The various firearms freedoms acts do not challenge or affect this genuine revenue raising. It is expected that if litigation under the MFFA is successful, it will still leave the excise tax on state-made and state-retained firearms and ammunition in place, and makers will likely remain liable for this tax.

The taxes levied under the NFA, however, are of the second sort, intended primarily to affect (restrict) commerce in these items. The NFA probably brings in less revenue than the cost of enforcement, so it’s probably a net loss to the federal government.

Therefore, although it may claim to be done under Congress’s tax power, that claim will fail and the fall-back position of the federal government will be Congress’s authority to regulate commerce “among the states.”

Thus, NFA-asserted tax power would actually fall exactly under the commerce clause power challenge that is the core of the MFFA and its clones around the U.S.

Also, it’s helpful to keep in mind that the MFFA and its clones are really a states’ rights exercise, a challenge to federal commerce clause power on Tenth Amendment and other grounds. It is more about federal power than firearms. States’ rights are the subject; firearms are the object.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association has filed its promised legal challenge over the MFFA in federal court. The most powerful card we have to play is “emerging consensus,” judicial jargon for “There are mobs of peasants at the palace gates bearing pitchforks and torches and we’d better pay attention to what they want.”

That two states have enacted Firearms Freedom Acts, ten states have introduced them, and 20 other states are poised to introduce their own is an “emerging consensus” that the federal judiciary probably won’t actively acknowledge, but that those in the black robes will be aware of and pay attention to.

Does this mean that litigating the MFFA will be a slam-dunk? Absolutely not! Nappen is correct that the barriers are high and well-established. Still, it’s high time for this challenge to be mounted. Nappen would serve us all better by charging his legal musket than by being so ready to concede the field to the other side.

From Nappen’s Website: “Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords.”
–Theodore Roosevelt

Gary Marbut [send him email] is President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which became state law on October 1, 2009

Recently, the U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, responding to a reporter’s question of whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to enact individual health insurance mandate, kept repeating, “Are you serious?”

Now, let’s give Speaker Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and attribute her impolite reply to simple disbelief. In fact, from her point of view her authority is unchallenged per a September press release, and many others such as Politico’s Erwin Chemerinsky and even the contemporary Supreme Court agree. From her press release, Pelosi states:

“The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.“

The Speaker is certainly correct that federal Congress has certainly legislated on “many aspects of American life.”  In fact, there is a lot more at stake with the Commerce Clause than “just” our health care — the entire authority for economic central planning rests on this single clause. I strongly disagree with Pelosi that the Constitution allows Congress broad power in this respect. First, the exact language from my job description in Powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“The Congress shall have Power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Pelosi believes that she has the power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” and I suggest that in blunt language she instead literally means to “control the economy… of the States.”  Pelosi and her ilk accomplish this by confusing the modern meanings with the legal meaning and contemporary context of the founders.

Regulation, in today’s dictionaries, means “a governmental order having the force of law.” However, this is not the historical definition.  The founders believed “regulate” to literally mean ‘to make more regular’ or, per Black’s Law Dictionary at the time, “a rule or order prescribed for management or government; a regulating principle; a precept.” In other words, regulate meant that Congress should in principle assist with Commerce disputes between the States, but did not grant Congress the power of law to inflict criminal penalties. This is most clearly seen in Article 2 of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson.

Next, although the Federalist Papers are not legal documents, they do serve as public demonstrations of the founders’ intentions as they were part of a series of essays published to explain the Constitution to the public before its’ ratification. James Madison in Federalist #42 wrote:

“The defect[s] of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members… [has] been clearly pointed out by experience… It may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity… it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade… The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls.”

A modern example of “unregulated” Commerce by the founder’s meaning would be manufacturing companies in the interior of India, which has 28 states. As goods move by rail or truck from interior states to a seaport in a coastal state, each state assesses its own tariff at its border which rightly leads to “animosities” and a “less convenient channel” for foreign trade. But what did the founders mean by ‘Commerce’?

Within the last century, several American lawyers have claimed the founder’s definition of commerce was “all gainful activities” or “all human interactions.” This has been taken by the leviathan federal Government as authority to control not just health care, but the minimum wage, manufacturing, agriculture, the mining, oil and lumber industries, possession of firearms, land use, criminal law such as federal drug laws, and environmental protection, in most cases usurping states’ rights per the 10th Amendment and in some cases even inventing jurisdictions.

Fortunately, Dr. Robert Natelson wrote a well-documented paper “The Legal Meaning of ‘Commerce’ in the Commerce Clause” in 1996. After examining thousands of instances of ‘Commerce’ used in contemporary legal documents, Natelson concluded that commerce simply and exclusively meant “exchange” or “traffic” and its associated activities, such as navigation, to the founders. In simple English, commerce benefits agriculture or manufacturing, but does not include either agriculture or manufacturing. Furthermore, Natelson notes:

“If we read “Commerce among the several States” to mean “all gainful economic activity among the several States,” then the clauses by which Congress is empowered to regulate commerce with “foreign Nations” and the “Indian Tribes” become either largely redundant or nonsensical. Even more seriously, if the Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate all economic activities, then some of Congress’ other economic powers become surplus.”

So, if the Commerce Clause gave Congress economic central planning authority, many of the powers listed in the Constitutionwould be redundant. The powers of Congress over postal roads and offices, dockyards, intellectual property, and more would be repetitive if the power was already enumerated in the Commerce Clause. During the Federalist Papers debate, one would have expected the Commerce Clause to have been hotly debated by the anti-Federalists if it had been truly intended to give unlimited power over all gainful economic activities to the federal government. Federalist #42 would not have been able to dodge such a huge stripping of power from the States. What do we hear from the historical record? Silence, which indicates that this was a non-issue.

Natelson goes into a lot more detail than I have, and it is much easier to shred the other constitutional references given to support government infringement into health care.  Please read my Health Care plank which also links to the Constitution of the USSR (which DOES authorize government involvement in health care) and this great discussion on the “General Welfare” clause.

The “Necessary and Proper” clause is briefly dismissed by the referenced Natelson paper, but more strongly in his other papers. In short, Pelosi and the rest of Congress simply MUST have a constitutional amendment passed before legislating on health care. Their actions in Congress are highly illegal, and is one of many unconstitutional and illegal acts committed against the American people by Congress.  Since no help can be expected from the appointed-for-life Supreme Court, the last defense, really the only defense, is that of We the People ourselves.

So in formal reply to Speaker Pelosi, even the notion of federal government authority over the health care of the American people is completely absurd. My reply is: “Madame Speaker, are YOU serious?”

Jake Towne, “The Champion of the Constitution,” is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties.  Jake is a columnist at NolanChart, and also contributes to LibertyMaven and CampaignForLiberty.

Click the play button below to load the audio – approximately 44 minutes long. (note: it’s a relatively large file, so it will take a few minutes to load)
[audio:http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast292.mp3]

Here’s a few recent articles that Professor Natelson has contributed to the Tenth Amendment Center:

• It’s the People’s Right!
• The Enumerated Powers of States
• The Constitution: A Question of Interpretation

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

Recently I have grown deeply concerned with the potential power grab by the central government over credit card interest rates. In a time of weak economic conditions in many industries and the overall economy in general, the White House and Congress assume they have the power and responsibility to lower credit card rates and greatly increase regulation over the industry, in order to protect the consumer.

Prior to 1937, Congress’s role in the regulation of commerce was quite simply defined as the “movement of goods” between states, and put most production and manufacturing outside of the regulatory power of Congress. This definition has essentially been abandoned ever since the Supreme Court, in 1937, upheld an act allowing Congress to regulate many aspects of labor through the National Labor Relations Board.

Before this case, activities within the states were left strictly to the states to regulate and it was out of the boundaries of the federal government to intervene. Today, this description of regulation would be laughed at by the bureaucrats in Washington arguing to regulate practically anything that the government doesn’t already have its hands on.

The issue of whether credit card rates and businesses should be regulated is a viable discussion. Traditionally, and constitutionally, this is an issue that should absolutely be left to the states. It is a local issue and not an interstate issue, thus taking it out of Congress’s regulation jurisdiction. At least, this is what the case would have been before 1937 when a more clear interpretation was used to define the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

The troubling aspect of the new potential regulations of credit cards is that it is the Federal Reserve Board who is making many of the new decisions and regulations limiting credit-rate increases, set to take effect in 2010. Now, think for a moment.

If it used to be out of the constitutional boundaries of Congress to regulate local and state matters like credit card rates, where on earth does the Federal Reserve get the constitutional authority to set and carry out these regulations? It is troubling that the Constitution can be trampled on this much without so much as a peep asking where the constitutional authority for these powers is derived from.

The issue of whether these regulations are needed or worthwhile is one thing. But rough problems today will easily turn into a disaster tomorrow if there is no check on government. Today we are seeing a federal government with few boundaries or concern for following the Constitution. Our government was created under the Constitution, and the federal government and Congress specifically were given very specific and limited powers. This was generally respected for the first 150 years of our nation’s history.

Credit card regulation may certainly be beneficial on a state level. If the regulation is needed, constitutionally it is clearly and definitively a decision to be debated and made by the states, not the federal government or Federal Reserve. Currently not only is state power being trampled on, but Congress has turned and continues to turn the responsibility of the states over to a closed-off, powerful, independent agency whose very constitutionality itself is questionable.

In today’s time of calls for more federal regulation, intervention, and control over finance, it is hard to imagine a time when Congress’s role in commerce was so narrowed down to regulating the movement of goods between states. It isn’t too unlikely that the Federal Reserve will gain even more regulatory powers over the financial industry over the next several years. What’s ironic is that it is all being carried out in the name of protecting the consumer.

It is absurd to think that allowing the Federal Reserve to carry more regulatory responsibility will help consumers. They have no constitutional authority to regulate, the operators of the Fed are not elected by the people, and the primary operations of the Fed are off-limits to audits. You cannot tell me that this group can adequately protect consumers and not pander to the banking interests who run the agency.

True regulatory representation of the consumer can only be achieved through the states. If it isn’t the individuals who decide the regulations, it isn’t right to call it consumer protection, is it? It’s a head scratcher to think that the same organization who has destroyed the value of our currency (which hits the lower and middle class hardest) can stand up for consumers with a straight face.

It is largely a lack of understanding and respect for the Constitution that got us into this mess in the first place. Many in government either do not understand, or simply ignore, the restraints placed on Congress’s regulatory power and the 10th Amendment’s clear language bringing issues not given to the federal government back to the states and the people.

If it is consumers who you want to protect, all you have to do is follow, respect, and protect the Constitution. Through their local, state, and own regulatory power, the free individuals of this country can do the rest.

“If the provisions of the constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.” — Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court George Sutherland

David Kretzmann is a remarkably precocious and insightful teenage investor who has been investing in individual stocks since July 2005. His latest commentary on finance, the economy, government and more can be found on his website, http://davidkretzmann.com

“Obama Moves to Let States Set Own Rules on Emissions”

So says The Wall Street Journal:

President Barack Obama plans to call on the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to consider allowing states including California to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, said people familiar with the administration’s thinking.

The move will signal a major policy break from his predecessor on an issue that has divided key Democratic Party constituencies …

… Mr. Obama’s plans were described to The Wall Street Journal by three people familiar with the administration’s thinking, including one administration official. Mr. Obama was expected to outline his plans in directives to the agencies to be released at a White House event Monday.

As I previously discussed, this is not necessarily as it seems.

Neither Bush nor Obama demonstrates a belief in states rights in this case.  Bush showed his colors by enforcing federal standards against state wishes.  Obama will do the same, but with one exception – states can have laws which are more totalitarian than the federal ones.

Imagine what would happen if the State of Idaho, for example, wanted to adopt a standard which was “lower” than the federal standards.  Do you think Obama, Bush, or almost anyone in Washington would be willing to go along with that?

The truth is that virtually nobody in Washington believes in the 10th amendment [States Rights] anymore.  They feel they can, and therefore rightfully should, regulate pretty much anything they feel like regulating.

The financial panic that has engulfed the planet is considered by politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and mainstream economists to be a problem of regulation. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with this gang of opinion makers, but it is not a problem of insufficient regulation, inadequate regulation, unenforced regulation, out-dated regulation, or anything of the kind.

The problem is with regulation itself. With regard to financial markets, government regulates everything. There is the Federal Reserve that regulates the money supply, interest rates and everything else. There is the Treasury with its array of regulatory powers.

There is the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Government has multiple layers of regulators concerning mortgages, financial institutions, and stock markets.

I have taught money and banking and was formerly the Assistant Superintendent of Banking in the state of Alabama and I can not think of a single thing related to this financial crisis that is not regulated.

Government regulation is the problem. Since going off the gold standard in 1971 we have experienced a series of bubble and bust cycles in the economy and each time the crisis has been dealt with bailouts, more regulations, and loosening of gold standard era constraints. The money supply as measured by M2 had long been just a couple of hundred billion and is now approaching $8 trillion dollars and we supposedly are still suffering from a lack of liquidity!

The American public once again finds itself playing 3 Card Monty with a dealer who insists we play and tells us that we cannot lose. We will put our bailout money down on the table, we will be reassured that we cannot lose (with more government regulation and “oversight”), the Fed will inject more fiat money and when the cups are turned we will all have our wealth ripped off.

What the American public needs to be told is that the crisis is actually the market trying to reestablish some rational order in the economy beset by regulation. It is the market that is tearing down these mega financial firms and disposing of the crazy financial products that they created. It is the market that is punishing those who grew rich on paper money schemes, derivatives, sub prime mortgages, and hedge funds. These are the same people the taxpayer is being asked to bail out–Wall Street fat cats.

What the American public needs to hear is that regulation is the problem and that the “unfettered market” is the only way to break out of the business cycle. All that is required is a gold coin system of money and for the rule of law to be applied to banking whereby demand deposits are held as reserves in the bank. The economics of gold would regulate the money supply and the interest rate would regulate the amount of demand and time deposits as well as borrowing and lending. No government regulation is required. There is no systemic or macroeconomic risk and the market eliminates the business cycle.

The only requirement is the legal recognition of the statement in the US Constitution that gold and silver are money. The market can handle everything else.

The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions.  We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights.

Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones.  If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.

Socialist ideologies blur this line between self reliance and government control because the mistakes of the individual are spread to everyone else.  Thus the government becomes very interested in your decisions and way of life, with the justification that you could make a mistake others will have to pay for.

The end result is, of course, that everyone loses privacy and control over their own lives.  Whether they realize it or not, they are no longer truly free.

This week in Congress brought some examples from both sides of the aisle on these issues of freedom and personal responsibility.  We talked about online gambling quite a bit with the markup of some legislation dealing with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Now, I am not someone who enjoys throwing money away, but I am someone who understands issues of freedom and self-ownership.  As such, I strongly support the right of free people to do with their hard-earned money as they please.

Gambling is ultimately a matter of personal choice, and some people find it entertaining.  As long as I am not forced to underwrite their losses, it is none of my business what gamblers do with their time and money.

There are those that feel online gambling is morally wrong and financially irresponsible, which I do not argue with, but they also feel that because of this, the government should step in and prevent or punish people for taking part in these activities.  This attitude is anathema to the ideas of liberty.

However, most of the same anti-gambling crowd sang an entirely different tune when we discussed giving away free birth control in schools.  All of a sudden, they did not want others making decisions about their lifestyles and families, while the other side felt the need to interfere.

It is interesting that the same group that feels parents have the absolute right and ability to control how and when their kids get birth control, are powerless to monitor their internet activity and must enlist government regulatory assistance to protect against gambling or predators.

Which is it?  Are parents the ones to parent, or not?  Both sides switch their positions based on the subject at hand, but the philosophy of liberty is elegantly simple and consistent.

I can assure you of this – once the government gains a foothold into regulating the internet, even for benevolent reasons, the wonders of the free internet will soon be a thing of the past.  Parents, with modern day technology, are quite capable of monitoring their children’s internet activity.

The internet must remain a government-free zone to maintain its integrity and usefulness to modern society, and that is something for which I will continue to fight.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

As the George Bush stated in his weekly radio address:

“From my conversations with Democrats and Republicans, it is clear both parties recognize that strengthening health care for all Americans is one of our most important responsibilities”

Based on this statement, it’s also quite clear that both parties have chosen to abandon the rules of the Constitution. As the 10th Amendment states so plainly:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here’s a simple challenge for anyone reading this post: review the US Constitution, and try to find health or health care mentioned anywhere. You might have a tough time, because it’s not there.

Therefore, since getting involved in medical care or the medical insurance business is not within the purview of the federal government, such activity is simply not authorized. Health care, health insurance, drug policy, and the like, must be “reserved to the States…or to the People,” no matter how noble the cause may seem to be.

One fact is nearly indisputable, though: health care in America is in bad shape, and it’s getting worse each year.

We are often reminded that more than forty million Americans go without health insurance, and that this is the fault of the greedy corporations making billions and not due to anything the government has done. We’re told that it’s the health care providers, it’s our employers, or it’s our own bad decisions.

According to the politicians, our declining health care system is anybody and everybody’s fault, except the federal government. This just must be true, because they care about us so much, and would never lie, right?

But, it wasn’t always this way. For decades, the healthcare system in the U.S. was the envy of the whole world. Not too surprisingly, there was far less government involvement in health care at that time as well.

The mess our health care system is in is not the result of too little government involvement, but rather, too much! Obviously, the politicians would never tell us this.

Such honesty would prevent them from having even more power over our day-to-day lives.

Instead, we are told that more and more government involvement, regulation, and decision-making over our health and well-being will solve our problems. But, government is already responsible for nearly two-thirds of all health care spending. They have given us Medicare, Medicaid, billions of research dollars, and countless thousands of pages of regulations.

Even the so-called conservatives, with George Bush leading the charge, have continuously expanded federal power and strengthened government control over our health. With Bush’s prescription drug program, Republicans saddled us with the largest expansion of medical socialism at the national level since the introduction of Medicare. Leftists and socialists should be cheering!

Has all this spending and “regulation” reduced the price of health care? Has all this government “intervention” increased the quality of health care?

No. And this should be quite obvious. Every single year health care gets more expensive, and less accessible, with reduced quality as well. As a result, the politicians spend and regulate the industry more and more each year – to save us, of course.

The important question is this: Who is better off from all the “help” the government has given us? Is it the companies that get favored status, we the people, or the politicians themselves?

If these meddling politicians really cared about people; if they really cared about YOUR health, they’d be doing everything possible to get the federal government out of health care entirely.

Forty years of declining quality and rising prices should make it obvious to even the casual observer that all this government intervention is failing. More intervention is only likely to do the same.

The solution to all today’s medical problems is to get government out of health care. At the very least, we need to end all this massive federal regulation, end Medicare, and repeal all mandatory coverage laws. The result of these early steps would be better care at a lower cost for seniors, the growth of charity hospitals and free clinics, and more options and lower prices for the rest of us.

The best way to make health care more efficient and more affordable is to take the government and politics out of it. If we are to survive this awful mess, we need to follow the tenth amendment and get the federal government completely out of health care, drugs, and everything else not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

This is just what is needed to help the sick and the poor, and that’s exactly why the politicians aren’t even talking about it.