• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

Centinel said:
Whether or not the effect is substantial is irrelevant. The states did not delegate to congress the power to regulate any activity that might effect (either substantially or unsubstantially) commerce among the states. The states only delegated congress the power to regulate actual commerce among the states. This means that everything that is not actual commerce among the state, as in goods being shopped from one state to the next, is to be regulated not by congress, but by the state within which the activity occurs.

So, for example. If I grow wheat in my backyard, it may or may not have some effect on commerce among the states. But whether it does or not is not relevant. Congress may only regulate how I ship this wheat to another state.

"Commerce among the states", not "Anything that might have some effect on commerce among the states."

There's a clear difference, and only the first of those appears in the constitution.
Click to expand...
From what I understand of the original intent of the commerce clause it was supposed to keep trade fair amongst the states by allowing the federal to settle disputes. Such disputes that may exist would be for example if Louisiana charged California three times as much for oil than it would New York or Florida without justification such as shipping costs, any hazards that must be accounted for, etc. What I hate about politicians is that as soon as they feel like they can get away with it they misinterpret themselves more power and as such the ninth and tenth amendments have become so twisted and abused that they are weak and unintelligible.
 
LaMidRighter said:
From what I understand of the original intent of the commerce clause it was supposed to keep trade fair amongst the states by allowing the federal to settle disputes. Such disputes that may exist would be for example if Louisiana charged California three times as much for oil than it would New York or Florida without justification such as shipping costs, any hazards that must be accounted for, etc.
Click to expand...

I think your understanding is correct. Remember, in the language of the day, the term "regulate" meant "to make regular". The intention was that the federal government would ensure that trade among the republics operated smoothly and without restrictions by any of the members.

What I hate about politicians is that as soon as they feel like they can get away with it they misinterpret themselves more power and as such the ninth and tenth amendments have become so twisted and abused that they are weak and unintelligible.
Click to expand...

In any federation, there is always a tendency toward consolidation and empire. Heck, our current constitution was a move towards consolidation over the articles of confederation. But the whole point of a federation is that it is NOT a unitary government, but rather a compact between sovereign nations, who create the federation as their agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom