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 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Commerce Clause

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,355

    Commerce Clause

    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?
    Last edited by Rucker61; 08-13-17 at 12:55 PM.
    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

  2. #2
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    32,642

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Your poll responses don't really match the question.

    The clause as interpreted in Wickard, and the intention of the Framers, are very different things.

    The Framers absolutely did not intend for any such thing.

    An application of Wickard might allow for it.

    But I'd suggest that it would be a fairly radical interpretation of the Wickard Court's already-radical interpretation, so it would be full-on into Crazy Town.
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  3. #3
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,355

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Your poll responses don't really match the question.

    The clause as interpreted in Wickard, and the intention of the Framers, are very different things.

    The Framers absolutely did not intend for any such thing.

    An application of Wickard might allow for it.

    But I'd suggest that it would be a fairly radical interpretation of the Wickard Court's already-radical interpretation, so it would be full-on into Crazy Town.
    Noted, and fixed, hopefully.
    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

  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,898

    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?
    The answer is a clear yes if we are dealing it facts about current law. Oh do you think it applies to marijuana grown for personal consumption? Are tomatoes special?

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,355

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    The answer is a clear yes if we are dealing it facts about current law. Oh do you think it applies to marijuana grown for personal consumption? Are tomatoes special?
    Feel free to start your own poll.

    Edit: LOL
    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

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,898

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
    Feel free to start your own poll.

    Edit: LOL
    I answered yours. Oh by the way the question never mentions intent. Lol

  7. #7
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,624
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Commerce Clause

    To answer your question, No.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have...Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    The purpose of the commerce clause was to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade.
    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.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,898

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    To answer your question, No.



    The purpose of the commerce clause was to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade.
    Scotus disagrees

  9. #9
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,624
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    Scotus disagrees
    I believe the question was, what was it intended to do. The first rule of legal interpretation is, the plain meaning, i.e. the words mean what they say.

    However, if there is any ambiguity the Courts go through a couple of other steps to reach a determination.

    In the case of this clause, the Court through a whole slew of decisions regarding regulations enacted by Congress over time has interpreted it in the following manner:

    1. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce (roadways, waterway, airways).
    2. Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. (People, vehicles, machines (internet)).
    3. Congress may regulate things which move across state lines. (Any product sold across state lines).
    4. Congress may regulate activities which have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. (Per U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) this means "where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.")
    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.

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,898

    Re: Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    I believe the question was, what was it intended to do. The first rule of legal interpretation is, the plain meaning, i.e. the words mean what they say.

    However, if there is any ambiguity the Courts go through a couple of other steps to reach a determination.

    In the case of this clause, the Court through a whole slew of decisions regarding regulations enacted by Congress over time has interpreted it in the following manner:

    1. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce (roadways, waterway, airways).
    2. Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. (People, vehicles, machines (internet)).
    3. Congress may regulate things which move across state lines. (Any product sold across state lines).
    4. Congress may regulate activities which have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. (Per U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) this means "where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.")
    I believe the question never addressed intent. Only the supplied answers. Intent is meaningless anyway

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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