The Commerce Clause

[Patranus]

Congress shall have the power to.....

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

So, where does interstate commerce begin and when is it an overreach by the federal government.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well, for a while, the Supreme Court just went along with the federal government from around the New Deal to the mid 90's with the Rehnquist Court. But I think that you're asking a pretty academic question. Obviously, under Supreme Court case law, the federal government reach is pretty damn broad, but not unlimited.

 

[drebo]

It's a definite over-reach when it's decided that a man can't grow food for his chickens so he can eat their eggs because it impacts interstate commerce. That's just not right.

I can't really see a modern day example where the Commerce Clause has a reasonable application. I'd like to see an amendment striking it from the constitution. Or, at the very least, clarifying it to the point where it doesn't have the potential to touch anything and everything that might have the potential to at some point cross state lines.

 

[matt0611]

Commerce clause means the feds can regulate the flow of goods going across state lines, thats it, none of this other bullshit. The feds have way overreached their specified powers and needs to be rolled back.

 

[spidey07]

Commerce clause means the feds can regulate the flow of goods going across state lines, thats it, none of this other bullshit. The feds have way overreached their specified powers and needs to be rolled back.

We'd have to get rid of wickard v. filburn. That was the case that bastardized the commerce clause. Worst ruling ever.

 

[matt0611]

We'd have to get rid of wickard v. filburn. That was the case that bastardized the commerce clause. Worst ruling ever.

Rand Paul in the Senate on the health care law, commerce clause, wickard v filburn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAtt17e12-U&feature=player_embedded#

Wow, at least one senator understands the constitution.

 

[RabidMongoose]

We'd have to get rid of wickard v. filburn. That was the case that bastardized the commerce clause. Worst ruling ever.

Yeah, sure was worse than Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson!

 

[Rainsford]

Commerce clause means the feds can regulate the flow of goods going across state lines, thats it, none of this other bullshit. The feds have way overreached their specified powers and needs to be rolled back.

We can argue that maybe it was a badly written clause and should be modified, but the fact is that virtually ALL modern commercial transactions are "commerce among the several states", which gives the federal government pretty wide ranging power with things relating to commercial transactions.

 

[bamacre]

Some reading for the OP...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

 

[Anarchist420]

There are two original meanings. I think the Hamiltonians meant for it to grant the government infinite powers, while the Madisonians meant for it to be used to remove state legislature-imposed trade barriers like State tariffs.

A good application of it would be for Congress to remove the barriers on interstate selling of health insurance.

That's why I don't like the Constitution, is because their is a statist way of interpreting it in addition to the libertarian way of interpreting it. If it was a truly libertarian document, then it would've not been so vague; rather, it would've said:
"Congress shall have the power to remove interstate trade barriers set up by state legislatures"

 

[piasabird]

Well the Supreme court decided in disputes with Corporations, that the commerce clause covered all major corporations, unless they did business only in one state. So almost everything is thought to be covered by the commerce clause because almost all businesses buy and sell products accross state lines.

Sometimes in today's age, states rights make little or no sense. You would think more things need to be federalized like drivers licenses, and things like a Doctors License to practice medicine, and insurance. It seems so stupid to have so many blockades set up seemingly just to raise prices and to punish the poor and lower middle class.

On the local level, local administration of the law and for law enforcement does make sense because it saves money. However, with 50 different sets of laws it can cause problems.

 

[drebo]

States' Rights is one of the founding principals of this country. You cannot just ignore them without rewriting the Constitution.

The Federal Government was never meant to be a domestic governing body. It was meant, primarily, to formalize currency and protect from external threats. It wasn't meant to control individual citizens' lives.

The states are there to provide for the domestic laws of the citizens. The Federal Government can normalize inter-state relations, certainly, but the Federal Government should not be making laws targeted towards individuals. That is overstepping its intended purpose.

 

[Wreckem]

Rand Paul in the Senate on the health care law, commerce clause, wickard v filburn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAtt17e12-U&feature=player_embedded#

Wow, at least one senator understands the constitution.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

You can argue that it shouldn't be but that is in fact how it works.

 

[matt0611]

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

You can argue that it shouldn't be but that is in fact how it works.

Legally, yes, it means what they say it means.

In the world of logic and truth, it of course means something quite different IMO.

 

[feralkid]

Legally, yes, it means what they say it means.

In the world of logic and truth, it of course means something quite different IMO.

You probably wouldn't have much luck living in that world, whatever you choose to call it.

 

[matt0611]

You probably wouldn't have much luck living in that world, whatever you choose to call it.

Why? Because I don't think a guy growing wheat for his chickens constitutes interstate commerce? lol, yeah ok...whatever you say

 

[feralkid]

Why? Because I don't think a guy growing wheat for his chickens constitutes interstate commerce? lol, yeah ok...whatever you say

Nothing of the sort.

I meant if you go around disregarding the law because it doesn't fit your interpretation of "logic and truth", you may end up in jail or worse.

 

[matt0611]

Nothing of the sort.

I meant if you go around disregarding the law because it doesn't fit your interpretation of "logic and truth", you may end up in jail or worse.

Oh ok, well no, I wouldn't disobey the law, challenging it in court is the furthest I would go.