• 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!

Senate approves online sales tax bill [W:244]

There is no issues between the states being arising here. The situation involves a state that wants businesses from another state to collect taxes for them from consumers from their state. The other state where the business is located is not involved in the transaction nor the dispute.

Sure there is. Simply saying "Is not! Is not!" is a fail on your part
 
Sure there is. Simply saying "Is not! Is not!" is a fail on your part

No, the other state is not involved nor is the issue with the state. You're wrong.
 
Except that the commerce clause only deals in trade disputes. The federal government has no power to act on business. Yes, I realize the SC says otherwise, but I'm not going to humor nonsense. Are you?
.

Of course not. The way to interpret the Constitution is to have some guy on a political forum decide, not the Supreme Court.

Jesus.
 
Of course not. The way to interpret the Constitution is to have some guy on a political forum decide, not the Supreme Court.

Jesus.

I'm just going by the intent of the clause. :shrug: The commerce clause was to solve the problem of trade disputes between the listed members. It was not to control commerce nor was it to regulate business, or the behavior of people.
 
Last edited:
This bill isn't about the power to tax. This bill is about enforcement.

well can congress, create legislation which, gives ,grants, bestows something on to the states?....like power, authority, permission.

becuase i dont know, they can do that in the constitution.

congress does not have any power either to delegate away any authority they have under the constitution.
 
I'm just going by the intent of the clause. :shrug: The commerce clause was to solve the problem of trade disputes between the listed members. It was not to control commerce nor was it to regulate business, or the behavior of people.

I'm just going by the Constitutional procedure: we submit constitutional questions to the SC in the form of lawsuits where the parties make appropriate legal arguments based on the facts. Impromptu constitutional interpretations by disgruntled tax payers isn't much of an alternative the constitutional procedure that has served this country well for over 200 years.
 
I'm just going by the Constitutional procedure: we submit constitutional questions to the SC in the form of lawsuits where the parties make appropriate legal arguments based on the facts. Impromptu constitutional interpretations by disgruntled tax payers isn't much of an alternative the constitutional procedure that has served this country well for over 200 years.

It's not my interpretation, but more of the words of Madison himself. :shrug:
 
Except that the commerce clause only deals in trade disputes. The federal government has no power to act on business. Yes, I realize the SC says otherwise, but I'm not going to humor nonsense. Are you?

Btw, does anyone want to tell where the words "Interstate commerce" happen to be? Far to long I have been looking for those words in the commerce clause and I have yet to find them.
Carry on, Don Quixote.
 
Except that the commerce clause only deals in trade disputes. The federal government has no power to act on business. Yes, I realize the SC says otherwise, but I'm not going to humor nonsense. Are you?

Btw, does anyone want to tell where the words "Interstate commerce" happen to be? Far to long I have been looking for those words in the commerce clause and I have yet to find them.

From a Boston University School of Law study on the commerce clause:

102RP6

The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity."

Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations."

In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.


....Yes, I realize the SC says otherwise, but I'm not going to humor nonsense. Are you?....

Do I understand this to be a statement by you that SCOTUS interpretations of the COTUS are nonsense? Surely I hope I am misreading. Are you dismissing competent evidential matter (SCOTUS decisions) simply because they do not fit into your argument. Why would anyone want to debate with someone that argues such nonsense?
 
Last edited:
From a Boston University School of Law study on the commerce clause:

102RP6

The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity."

Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations."

In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.

University of Chicago? I have a reason to consider that why? The last part of that is complete and utter gibberish and I have no reason to consider any of it considering the source.

Do I understand this to be a statement by you that SCOTUS interpretations of the COTUS are nonsense? Surely I hope I am misreading. Are you dismissing competent evidential matter (SCOTUS decisions) simply because they do not fit into your argument. Why would anyone want to debate with someone that argues such nonsense?

I'm dismissing decisions that have nothing to do with the intent of the clause. I will do such with pride because I know I'm right.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom