Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    The problem with law is that it is so subjective... what's "substantial" is pretty vague.
    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.

  2. #22
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    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.
    Do you have any evidence to show that the animals were not sold out of state? Or are you just assuming they were all sold in state?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Do you have any evidence to show that the animals were not sold out of state? Or are you just assuming they were all sold in state?
    Yes, based on the article saying he and his son sold them locally, I am assuming they were sold in his own state.

  4. #24
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,919
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Yes, based on the article saying he and his son sold them locally, I am assuming they were sold in his own state.
    Idk about this case, but I live in NW AR and I am local to SW MO. For that matter so are parts of OK and KS.

    not that I think it's relevant though
    I may be wrong.

  5. #25
    User J Adams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-04-16 @ 04:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    42

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by toomuchtime_ View Post
    If USDA employees have time to chase down "offenders" like this one, then clearly there is some room for budget cutting at this agency.
    Agreed. The federal government has become far too intrucive. It's way past time for many federal agencies to be scaled back or eliminated.

  6. #26
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    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.
    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.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #27
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Welcome to Obamistan.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: $90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •