• 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!

Is state nullification constitutional?

Is state nullification constitutional?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 35.7%

  • No

    Votes: 24 57.1%

  • Other/Don't know

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • Total voters
    42
Tucker Case said:
It doesn't follow, though. It took almost 100 years for SCOTUS to decide to expand the power illegitimately.
Click to expand...
That may actually be one they got right. Shocking I know, but as long as the fourteenth gives naturalization powers to the federal they own the entire process. It's really that simple.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Unless, of course, it requires crossing borders, immigration, which is a 100% precondition to immigrate.
Click to expand...

Millions of people cross our borders without immigrating every day. That has nothing to do with immigration and residency. The feds are free to turn people away at the border.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That may actually be one they got right.
Click to expand...

So you don't actually give a **** about constitutionality. Ends justify the means, **** on the constitution when it suits your purposes, etc. Noted. Why bother pretending that the constitution matters, though?
 
Tucker Case said:
So you don't actually give a **** about constitutionality. Ends justify the means, **** on the constitution when it suits your purposes, etc. Noted. Why bother pretending that the constitution matters, though?
Click to expand...
You're being overly emotional Tuck. I'm spelling out how it's constitutional and why, if it weren't I wouldn't be going through the logic of it and would be on your side.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You're being overly emotional Tuck. I'm spelling out how it's constitutional and why, if it weren't I wouldn't be going through the logic of it and would be on your side.
Click to expand...

I'm not being emotional at all. I'm being blunt. You've **** on the principles you profess to uphold based on your reverse engineered logic designed to achieve the desired conclusion (that immigration is a federal power).

You've employed identical logic to the "gun grabbers" by reinterpreting words, redefining terms, and claiming that things which are not enumerated powers are enumerated powers in order to justify the increase federal authority in an illegitimate manner. Once you do that, you lose all credibility in such debates, IMO.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm not being emotional at all. I'm being blunt. You've **** on the principles you profess to uphold based on your reverse engineered logic designed to achieve the desired conclusion (that immigration is a federal power).

You've employed identical logic to the "gun grabbers" by reinterpreting words, redefining terms, and claiming that things which are not enumerated powers are enumerated powers in order to justify the increase federal authority in an illegitimate manner. Once you do that, you lose all credibility in such debates, IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm being very consistent. The only time the federal has powers are when specifically given them by the constitution, with one exception, necessary and proper. Necessary and proper follows that if something is of compelling interest and properly found to be within a power then the govenrment requires no amendment.

In a case where the commerce clause(commerce between the states specifically, not interstate implications as expanded) is abused, yes, it fails a necessary and proper test because there is no initial power to the fed to uphold, regardless of court rulings it's patently obvious. In the case of immigration, crossing borders, it's necessary to insure that those coming into the country are doing so at a reasonable pace so that resources aren't exhausted, and it's also necessary to make sure those crossing borders are doing so for benign purposes. The "proper" test is upheld because of two powers 1) Naturalization, as it follows that controlling immigration and non-citizen residency is crucial to the process it also passes the defensive powers test in that borders are the very definintion of defense.
 
Tucker Case said:
You've just argued the exact opposite with regard to residency and immigration, though.
Click to expand...
All you are saying is that the two aren't compatible. I'm explaining that the only way to enforce naturalization of non-citizens is to have control of the immigration process, and that because of necessary and proper it stands to reason that they do have the need for immigration powers and because properly they have naturalization powers due to the fourteenth both tests are passed. The federal isn't saying immigrants MUST remain in the same residence, just that until they have completed naturalization they MUST be on record with the INS, IOW, they have immigration powers through their naturalization powers, not "residency" but they do have immigration policy power.
 
LaMidRighter said:
All you are saying is that the two aren't compatible.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the two aren't interdependent. That's what disproves your necessary and proper argument.

I'm explaining that the only way to enforce naturalization of non-citizens is to have control of the immigration process
Click to expand...

And that is demonstrably false as naturalization was enforced, without any problems, for nearly 100 years without federal control over the immigration process.

You can claim whatever you like. That's easy. The problem is that your claims are not supported by any facts.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, I'm saying that the two aren't interdependent. That's what disproves your necessary and proper argument.
Click to expand...
By necessity they are. You can't naturalize someone who doesn't 1) Immigrate 2) identify themselves 3) Register in the system 4) attends the classes, satisfies all requirements, and is capable of being contacted. What good is the naturalization process if immigration isn't controlled?



And that is demonstrably false as naturalization was enforced, without any problems, for nearly 100 years without federal control over the immigration process.
Click to expand...
There has always been a naturalization process, and it has constistently been dependent upon having a certain set of standards. The big problem came when a certain country went to **** and the people started violating border sovereignity. When people were coming in across the ocean it was pretty controllable, when people literally walk across the border it's not as easy. And, this isn't a rant against a people to be clear, it's against crossing borders illegally, a criminal action.

You can claim whatever you like. That's easy. The problem is that your claims are not supported by any facts.
Click to expand...
Necessary and Proper is a fact, legal immigration and naturalization are interdependent, not legally entering the naturalization process is a crime, residency is not a federal purview, but illegal immigration is, I don't know which of these can be "opinion".
 
LaMidRighter said:
By necessity they are. You can't naturalize someone who doesn't 1) Immigrate 2) identify themselves 3) Register in the system 4) attends the classes, satisfies all requirements, and is capable of being contacted.
Click to expand...

False. Just because one is dependent on the other doesn't mean they are interdependent.

What good is the naturalization process if immigration isn't controlled?
Click to expand...

It is just as good as it is if immigration is controlled. They are totally different things. Where'd you get the idea that it was?

There has always been a naturalization process
Click to expand...

And it has always required immigration, but only after 1875 did it suddenly, magically, through the power of unicorn farts (presumably), become "necessary" for the feds to control immigration in order to effectively carry out their naturalization duties despite having done so without any problems for nearly 100 years.

Necessary and Proper is a fact, legal immigration and naturalization are interdependent, not legally entering the naturalization process is a crime, residency is not a federal purview, but illegal immigration is, I don't know which of these can be "opinion".
Click to expand...

Again, just because you can pretend it's true doesn't make it true.

In order for something to pass the necessary and proper test, one must look at the word necessary, understand what it means, understand what it cannot possibly mean, and then go from there.

In order for something to be necessary, it must be required. If it is not required, it cannot possibly be necessary.

The thing being tested is whether federal control over immigration (non-enumerated power) is necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization (enumerated power). We can look at the evidence here, and it's clear.

For almost 100 years, a uniform code of naturalization existed in the absence of federal control over immigration.

What does that tell us?

The obvious answer is that federal control over immigration is NOT necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization. Thus it fails the necessary and proper test.

Ergo, your claim that it is necessary must, logically, be a false claim unsupported by logic or reason in any way shape or form.
 
Anagram said:
Nullification efforts are mounting in states across the country. Kansas recently made it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws on guns made in Kansas. A law here in Missouri recently passed with huge super-majorities, so it will come into effect regardless of whether Governor Nixon vetoes it. So my question is whether or not those laws are constitutional.

I'd like to make a distinction between those laws and the marijuana laws that have come into effect and are mentioned in the source as examples of nullification. Those laws merely legalize marijuana in the state, but do not prevent federal agents from enforcing the federal laws against it. As I understand it, this type of law was ruled constitutional in Prigg v Pennsylvania where it was said that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Rather, what I am talking about are laws that prevent even federal agents from enforcing the federal laws.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what SCOTUS would rule on it however it is generally understood that the federal government cannot legally make laws on something which the Constitution does not give it power to do so. So in that respect the States can nullify such a law. However if the goverment makes a law under one of its powers then no, the state cannot nullify them from enforcing such a law, they can only refuse to help do so. This is actually how the Federal government was able to ban full automatic guns, by using one of their constitutional powers to ban em. Namely the sale of them using the Commerce clause. Which honestly has been abused on this issue as well as they are extending it to intrastate sales as well as interstate sales on the basis that the gun might be sold to someone which does not reside in that state.

What many don't know about the commerce clause is that it was never intended to be used against individuals, only states. It was written with the intent of regulating state commerce. Its purpose was to stop states from creating excessive taxes on goods imported from another state while giving a bonus to selling goods from their state into another state. Unfortenately greedy politicians and CEO's has corrupted it to what it is now a days.
 
Tucker Case said:
False. Just because one is dependent on the other doesn't mean they are interdependent.
Click to expand...
To an extent you are correct. Immigration is simply the act of crossing national borders. However legal immigration and residency are dependent upon the naturalization process.



It is just as good as it is if immigration is controlled. They are totally different things. Where'd you get the idea that it was?
Click to expand...
How so Tuck? Seriously, if people can just come into the country and expend resources, vote in certain elections, etc. what's the point of them assimilating and becoming a legitimate citizen?



And it has always required immigration, but only after 1875 did it suddenly, magically, through the power of unicorn farts (presumably), become "necessary" for the feds to control immigration in order to effectively carry out their naturalization duties despite having done so without any problems for nearly 100 years.
Click to expand...
The fourteenth amendment, not magic. Constitutional amendments are legally binding.



Again, just because you can pretend it's true doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
It is true.

In order for something to pass the necessary and proper test, one must look at the word necessary, understand what it means, understand what it cannot possibly mean, and then go from there.
Click to expand...
Right, and for the necessary argument, the naturalization process requires that people who seek citizenship being acounted for.

In order for something to be necessary, it must be required. If it is not required, it cannot possibly be necessary.
Click to expand...
And how do you have a naturalization process without immigration law? Explain that.

The thing being tested is whether federal control over immigration (non-enumerated power) is necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization (enumerated power). We can look at the evidence here, and it's clear.

For almost 100 years, a uniform code of naturalization existed in the absence of federal control over immigration.
Click to expand...
And the fourteenth undid that, if you don't like it suggest an alternative amendment to your legislators.

What does that tell us?

The obvious answer is that federal control over immigration is NOT necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization. Thus it fails the necessary and proper test.

Ergo, your claim that it is necessary must, logically, be a false claim unsupported by logic or reason in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
It's apparently not the obvious answer, because I disagree.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I have no idea what SCOTUS would rule on it however it is generally understood that the federal government cannot legally make laws on something which the Constitution does not give it power to do so. So in that respect the States can nullify such a law. However if the goverment makes a law under one of its powers then no, the state cannot nullify them from enforcing such a law, they can only refuse to help do so. This is actually how the Federal government was able to ban full automatic guns, by using one of their constitutional powers to ban em. Namely the sale of them using the Commerce clause. Which honestly has been abused on this issue as well as they are extending it to intrastate sales as well as interstate sales on the basis that the gun might be sold to someone which does not reside in that state.
Click to expand...
The cpmmerce clause was never meant to adress general commerce, only commerce between the states themselves. FDR threatened a court packing scheme and the original interpretation was reversed, that expansion was one of the most abusive decisions and acts of political malfeasance(FDR) from the last century.

What many don't know about the commerce clause is that it was never intended to be used against individuals, only states. It was written with the intent of regulating state commerce. Its purpose was to stop states from creating excessive taxes on goods imported from another state while giving a bonus to selling goods from their state into another state. Unfortenately greedy politicians and CEO's has corrupted it to what it is now a days.
Click to expand...
Nevermind, I noticed previous statement was a set up to this.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The cpmmerce [sic] clause was never meant to adress [sic] general commerce, only commerce between the states themselves. FDR threatened a court packing scheme and the original interpretation was reversed, that expansion was one of the most abusive decisions and acts of political malfeasance(FDR) from the last century.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this is the single worst thing that any President of this nation has ever done to this nation. It was this one act which set the precedent that has allowed the federal government to run so far outside of its legitimate bounds, and to grow into the tyrannical, uncontrolled mess that it now is. It is the one act that has most undermined and effectively nullified the Constitution.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
In my opinion, this is the single worst thing that any President of this nation has ever done to this nation. It was this one act which set the precedent that has allowed the federal government to run so far outside of its legitimate bounds, and to grow into the tyrannical, uncontrolled mess that it now is. It is the one act that has most undermined and effectively nullified the Constitution.
Click to expand...
That, the 16th amendment ending the prohibition on direct taxation, the stripping of state's rights to secede are the trifecta of tyranny. Expanding the commerce clause though was probably, as you said, the key lynch pin to everything else that would follow.
 
LaMidRighter said:
However legal immigration and residency are dependent upon the naturalization process.
Click to expand...

Completely false. They are not affected by naturalization at all. It's absurd to claim they are dependent on naturalization because things cannot be dependent on that which has no bearing on them whatsoever.


How so Tuck? Seriously, if people can just come into the country and expend resources, vote in certain elections, etc. what's the point of them assimilating and becoming a legitimate citizen?
Click to expand...

Immigrants can't vote in any elections unless they go through the naturalization process and become citizens. Only citizens can vote in elections. this is just as true right now as it would be if the feds had not usurped sole power over immigration. The benefits of citizenship are not affected by the rules regarding immigration. What a silly question to even ask.

The fourteenth amendment, not magic. Constitutional amendments are legally binding.
Click to expand...

The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, residency, or naturalization.

Right, and for the necessary argument, the naturalization process requires that people who seek citizenship being acounted for.
Click to expand...

Of course. Naturalization is requires that those immigrants who wish to become citizens must be documented by the feds in some way, but that, of course, has no ****ing bearing on immigrants who have no desire to become citizens. I've never said otherwise.

So the question becomes: Why does the government have sole authority over immigration and residency when immigrants who seek residence can do so without ever having the desire to become citizens?

There is no "desire to become a citizen" test for immigration. There is no expectation to become a citizen for immigrants (despite your previous false claim).

thus, what is the justification for usurping State authority over immigration and residency under the guise of naturalization, since immigration is obviously not dependent on naturalization?

And how do you have a naturalization process without immigration law? Explain that.
Click to expand...

Easily, just like they did for 100 years. Allow the states to determine who they grant residency to, as per the constitution (10th amendment), and then add a federal immigration path that is the uniform path to naturalization. As in, anyone who has a desire to eventually become a naturalized citizen must follow the federal path of immigration. those who do not wish to become citizens can utilize one of the state paths to residency/immigration.

this would mean that a place like Illinois can, if they desire, grant legal residency status to any immigrant who seeks Illinois residency, regardless of their federal status. However, if that immigrant does not have federal status, they cannot move between states and they run the risk of not being allowed to re-enter the country if they leave. They will also prevent themselves from ever becoming naturalized citizens.

See, the federal monopoly on immigration is not justified by naturalization. That was not the reasoning that was given by the SC either, when they decided to increase federal authority in this regard. The federal power over immigration was invented when California decided to NOT allow a Chinese immigrant into the country. The SC decided that such actions ran the risk of creating an international incident, and that's why what worked for 100 years was suddenly deemed to not work anymore (via judicial activism).

The 14th had nothing to do with it. Sorry. Disagree all you want, it won't affect reality here.
 
Tucker Case said:
Completely false. They are not affected by naturalization at all. It's absurd to claim they are dependent on naturalization because things cannot be dependent on that which has no bearing on them whatsoever.
Click to expand...
BS. A person cannot be here unless at the discretion of the U.S. and can be deported for being here without permission. This is part of naturalization, but it's also part of defense as a border issue(which I noticed you never touched).




Immigrants can't vote in any elections unless they go through the naturalization process and become citizens. Only citizens can vote in elections. this is just as true right now as it would be if the feds had not usurped sole power over immigration. The benefits of citizenship are not affected by the rules regarding immigration. What a silly question to even ask.
Click to expand...
And yet some states are trying to assert that they want non-citizens to vote on elections, that is a naturalization issue. The problem with saying immigration and naturalization aren't under federal purview is that there are two powers that prove otherwise.



The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, residency, or naturalization.
Click to expand...
The fourteenth is a naturalization amendment. It's in section one of the amendment dealing with citizenship, while it was written in regard to the end of slavery it was also written as an evergreen amendment. IOW, it gives citizenship protection duties to the federal, this includes those naturalized and those under the authority of the U.S. Even illegal immigrants(not the amendment) are due certain basic protections, like law enforcement preventing crimes against them, basics like that, and thus it puts a strain on the process of naturalization, because those here legally and in the process are accounted for, resources and assimilation is planned for, and we ease them in. People who just say "to hell with it" and overstay or disrespect our borders put additional strain on the system. That's not deniable.



Of course. Naturalization is requires that those immigrants who wish to become citizens must be documented by the feds in some way, but that, of course, has no ****ing bearing on immigrants who have no desire to become citizens. I've never said otherwise.
Click to expand...
So we give protections and use resources on people who have no desire to become citizens? This excludes guest workers, students, and asylum seekers. Do we really want people breaking laws, crashing here, eating up resources who have no desire to join the community? And this sentiment, reality is why the naturalization process and immigration powers are necessarily linked by necessary and proper, there is a power that connects the two tests.

So the question becomes: Why does the government have sole authority over immigration and residency when immigrants who seek residence can do so without ever having the desire to become citizens?
Click to expand...
I don't think they should have sole authority on enforcement, and certainly not residency. However this is a rare case where they actually do have a power allowing them to enforce should a state not do so, and an even rarer case where the state has no power to stop it.

There is no "desire to become a citizen" test for immigration. There is no expectation to become a citizen for immigrants (despite your previous false claim).
Click to expand...
Yes there is, for a green card and permanent residence a person must be in the process of naturalizing. The only possibly permanent exception is asylum, every thing else is temporary by the visa system.

thus, what is the justification for usurping State authority over immigration and residency under the guise of naturalization, since immigration is obviously not dependent on naturalization?
Click to expand...
I've explained this enough. It's simple, the U.S. is in charge of naturalization and defense, everything about immigration crosses both of those powers.



Easily, just like they did for 100 years. Allow the states to determine who they grant residency to, as per the constitution (10th amendment), and then add a federal immigration path that is the uniform path to naturalization. As in, anyone who has a desire to eventually become a naturalized citizen must follow the federal path of immigration. those who do not wish to become citizens can utilize one of the state paths to residency/immigration.
Click to expand...
However states are not supposed to harbor criminals, illegal immigrants in this case, so how do you reconcile that.

this would mean that a place like Illinois can, if they desire, grant legal residency status to any immigrant who seeks Illinois residency, regardless of their federal status. However, if that immigrant does not have federal status, they cannot move between states and they run the risk of not being allowed to re-enter the country if they leave. They will also prevent themselves from ever becoming naturalized citizens.
Click to expand...
And if INS catches them they are gone.

See, the federal monopoly on immigration is not justified by naturalization. That was not the reasoning that was given by the SC either, when they decided to increase federal authority in this regard. The federal power over immigration was invented when California decided to NOT allow a Chinese immigrant into the country. The SC decided that such actions ran the risk of creating an international incident, and that's why what worked for 100 years was suddenly deemed to not work anymore (via judicial activism).
Click to expand...
It's not just naturalization, that is simply what we've forced the focum on. Defense is also a factor.

The 14th had nothing to do with it. Sorry. Disagree all you want, it won't affect reality here.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with it.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
It still amazes me that Congress didn't challenge Marbury v. Madison at that time, my best guess is they didn't want a full blown political struggle like that because of how new the rebuplic was. It seems though Congress looks more and more to delegate it's powers away, which is not only dangerous for the people of our country but seemingly a tactically ridiculous thing to do.
Click to expand...

I think that it is interesting that none of the Framers appeared to have challenged it either. Like much of the Constitution, judicial review was inherited from English common law and perhaps the Framers implied it or just assumed that people would recognize it.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The founding fathers did not give the Supreme Court the sole power to determine Constitutionality, nor to uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws. This is a power that this corrupt body illegitimately seized for itself.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as being an attempted seizure of power. Marbury also took some rights away from the Supreme Court that existed under the Judiciary Act but that SCOTUS found to be unconstitutional.

My guess, though, is that it would have been different if Democratic-Republican presidents were elected rather than the Federalists Washington and Adams. Both favored strong central governments, and so they naturally appointed justices who would fit their designs for the nation. As mentioned before, none of the Founders were free from political ambitions, and a lot of the Constitution was a compromise between opposing ambitions.
 
MadLib said:
I think that it is interesting that none of the Framers appeared to have challenged it either. Like much of the Constitution, judicial review was inherited from English common law and perhaps the Framers implied it or just assumed that people would recognize it.
Click to expand...

I think there's a good argument to be made that judicial view was both intended by the framers, and that it was used somewhat extensively between the adoption of the Constitution and Marbury.

George Mason said that federal judges could "declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law however oppressive or pernicious which does not fall plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Source.

James Madison said "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void." Source.

Hamilton's quote in Federalist Paper 78 is the one I've most often heard in favor of judicial review being planned.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .
Click to expand...

And here's a study referencing some earlier cases of judicial review.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub
 
MadLib said:
I think that it is interesting that none of the Framers appeared to have challenged it either. Like much of the Constitution, judicial review was inherited from English common law and perhaps the Framers implied it or just assumed that people would recognize it.
Click to expand...
I think JR was the first real test of Congress and my best guess is they didn't want something divisive that early in the republic. To be fair, that article was kind of loose and an argument for or against judicial review could go either way, I don't read it as establishing the high court as much more than a check to lower courts, or that must nullify unconstitutional laws. The big problem is when the court twists to uphold laws that are obviously not found within the purview of the federal.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think JR was the first real test of Congress and my best guess is they didn't want something divisive that early in the republic. To be fair, that article was kind of loose and an argument for or against judicial review could go either way, I don't read it as establishing the high court as much more than a check to lower courts, or that must nullify unconstitutional laws. The big problem is when the court twists to uphold laws that are obviously not found within the purview of the federal.
Click to expand...

That goes both ways, though. If there is no potential for them to uphold unconstitutional laws, they also do not have the ability to strike them down. They are sort of the last resort, when both the President and Congress are complicit in passing an unconstitutional act.

The thing about Congress is that it is, for the most part, glad lose power, or at least the appearance of power. Sure, they whine and complain whenever the president gives a far-reaching executive order, but they are more than happy to pass legislation to give him more authority. They'd rather
 
MadLib said:
That goes both ways, though. If there is no potential for them to uphold unconstitutional laws, they also do not have the ability to strike them down. They are sort of the last resort, when both the President and Congress are complicit in passing an unconstitutional act.

The thing about Congress is that it is, for the most part, glad lose power, or at least the appearance of power. Sure, they whine and complain whenever the president gives a far-reaching executive order, but they are more than happy to pass legislation to give him more authority. They'd rather
Click to expand...
I can agree with this. I am not a fan of judicial review, for the reason that it allows for a corrupt court to use interpretations to remove citizen protections, last century showed a lot of that, and there are some real troubling rulings presently.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The cpmmerce clause was never meant to adress general commerce, only commerce between the states themselves. FDR threatened a court packing scheme and the original interpretation was reversed, that expansion was one of the most abusive decisions and acts of political malfeasance(FDR) from the last century.

Nevermind, I noticed previous statement was a set up to this.
Click to expand...

some info for you

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

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom