View Poll Results: Does the Commerce Clause empower Congress to restrict a citizen from growing tomatoes

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the Commerce Clause was intended to give Congress that power.

    0 0%
  • No, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give Congress that power

    8 100.00%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Commerce Clause

  1. #11
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,652
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    I believe the question never addressed intent. Only the supplied answers. Intent is meaningless anyway
    Really? Take a look at the two poll choices. See the word intended anywhere?
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,265

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Really? Take a look at the two poll choices. See the word intended anywhere?
    Yes. The fully supplied answers talk about intent. But can you answer the question honestly without picking one of those two answer So?

  3. #13
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,652
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    Yes. The fully supplied answers talk about intent. But can you answer the question honestly without picking one of those two answer So?


    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    To answer your question, No.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,265

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    I can. I don't need my answers supplied to me. Lol

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,265

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    To anyone reading captain adverse did answer the question with his own unique answer. While I disagree with his answer it was wrong of me to characterize his ability to answer the question. I apologize.

  6. #16
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    07-20-18 @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    189,669

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
    Does the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empower Congress to impose any restrictions of homeowners to grow their own tomatoes for solely personal consumption?
    Until FDR came along, it was well established precedent that the CC bestowed NO power on congress that allowed it to regulate what private citizens did within their own sovereign states. So the answer is no. Wickard v Filburn was one of the most idiotic supreme court cases in history because

    1) it completely ignored the language of the constitution

    2) it completely ignored the tenth Amendment

    3) it was based purely on political expediency

    4) and it ignored 100+ years of established precedent.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.

  7. #17
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    07-20-18 @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    189,669

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Really? Take a look at the two poll choices. See the word intended anywhere?
    anonymous polls suck in these situations
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,265

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Until FDR came along, it was well established precedent that the CC bestowed NO power on congress that allowed it to regulate what private citizens did within their own sovereign states. So the answer is no. Wickard v Filburn was one of the most idiotic supreme court cases in history because

    1) it completely ignored the language of the constitution

    2) it completely ignored the tenth Amendment

    3) it was based purely on political expediency

    4) and it ignored 100+ years of established precedent.
    Your opinion is that of a tiny minority

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,382

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    anonymous polls suck in these situations
    It was my first poll. I'll learn the details for the next time.
    There is no loophole. The Brady Act works exactly as the Democrats who wrote it, voted on it, signed it into law and affirmed it intended it to work.
    "...no "reasonable restriction" is going to reduce the availability of semi auto rifles to people willing to commit murder." jaeger19

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,965

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
    Does the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empower Congress to impose any restrictions of homeowners to grow their own tomatoes for solely personal consumption?
    as the original intent of the commerce clause no it wasn't. The purpose of the commerce clause was to ensure free trade and free selling of goods across state lines.
    it meant that NC couldn't charge a transportation tax to SC to get goods to VA.

    the SCOTUS ruling on this mutilated the purpose of the commerce clause and turned over a huge chuck of power to the federal government that it shouldn't have.
    in fact it was a similar case about corn instead of tomato's. yes the federal government pur that horrible ruling allows them to set a restriction.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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