• 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!

Commerce Clause discussion

Rich2018 said:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
Click to expand...

Are you a foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe?
 
Rich2018 said:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations,;"
Click to expand...

did that mean to regulate as communist?? No, the history clearly shows that meant to regulate for free trade capitalism which is what they did the moment the Constitution was ratified. Why not ask questions and try to learn the basics?
 
James972 said:
did that mean to regulate as communist?? No, the history clearly shows that meant to regulate for free trade capitalism which is what they did the moment the Constitution was ratified. Why not ask questions and try to learn the basics?
Click to expand...

It means to regulate as it sees fit.

If it sees communism as the best economic system for the USA, then so be it


There is no evidence that communism wouldn't work in the USA.
 
Rich2018 said:
No I'm not

But I reside in one
Click to expand...

So you're not a foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.

And to whom does the commerce clause say it applies?
 
Rich2018 said:
The Constitution doesn't prevent a US government from adopting communist policies...
Click to expand...

The subject is the commerce clause specifically, hence note that the commerce clause was constructed with the recent experiences of under both British imperial rule and that of the Articles of Confederation. "Regulation" of "commerce" was predicated on the understanding of what national regulation of commerce meant in that era. To that end, trade and similar activity between states, and their spillovers, were typically understood as one of regulating private enterprise and the spill-over trade (and other disputed issues) between the states.

To be sure, any typical regulatory power of a state in that era, including that of protecting industries and cartels, was presumably also granted the national government as well. The abandonment of mercantilism and hegemony of classical liberalism was not yet complete, so one shouldn't presume that free trade and no tariffs was the sole regulatory purpose in the commerce clause (which is why tariffs on foreign goods were often still thought of as common sense).

However, within the traditional presumptions of power the authority of Congress was limited by the clause. When, for example, purely local commerce within any given state was in direct competition with interstate activity, the inability of the federal government under Gibbons v. Ogden to reach control that commerce allowed for state control of its internal commerce.

Of course, as we all should know, the commerce clause took on a life of its own, providing a springboard of expansion of the federal government power far greater than the minimal state envisioned by the founders. Through a series of court rulings, sophistry at best and outright fraud at worst, "read into" the clause all sorts of federal powers that never existed.

One of the first major transgressions by the federal government was the railroad Shreveport rate case. In state Texas freight rates were LOWER than that charged by interstate rail lines (whose rates were regulated by the federal government). The "wise" federal government found such rate cutting harmful and "unfair" and so the courts found that local competition can be suppressed insofar as it was necessary to preserve the desired rate structure for the interstate traffic.

And hence began this moronic "re-reading" of the commerce clause to allow all sorts of federal power - including supporting monopoly power on commerce for the "good" of society.
 
Samwise said:
So you're not a foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.

And to whom does the commerce clause say it applies?
Click to expand...

A foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.

Now who does that NOT include ?
 
Samwise said:
It allows congress to enact legislation regulating commerce among the several states.

Are you a state?
Click to expand...

until FDR came along, the CC was never used to give the federal government any power over a private citizen acting within his own sovereign state
 
Rich2018 said:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
Click to expand...

which was not intended to give congress powers not specifically delegated to it: especially powers over private citizens
 
maxparrish said:
...and hence began this moronic "re-reading" of the commerce clause to allow all sorts of federal power - including supporting monopoly power on commerce for the "good" of society.
Click to expand...


Yes, there has been a "liberal" interpretation of late to allow for supporting financial institutions and car company bail-outs.

It also allows for federal laws on things like smoke detectors on commercial airplanes


Ultimately Americans want their cake and eat it.

They want the government to be held in check by their badly written Constitution, but are quick to scream for help when they need it and the Constitution is forgotten about.
 
Rich2018 said:
Really? Where?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the means of production have to be privately owned for instance ?
Click to expand...

The commerce clause grants power to “regulate” commerce. The word “regulate” in 1787 didn’t mean to “own,” much less to mean to own the entities that create commerce and/or entities that create commerce that moves interstate, or to divest of private ownership of the means of production for state owned/public owned means of production.

The commerce clause doesn’t vest to Congress a power of “ownership” over the means of production.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
It means to regulate as it sees fit.
Click to expand...

Yep, but your reasoning assumes “regulate” means Congress can divest of private ownership of the means of production for state/government/public ownership. Simply, the word “regulate” in 1787 did not have a meaning granting such power to Congress.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
KtLaw said:
I wanted to see if anyone could help me get a better understanding of the commerce clause. In Wickard v. Filburn the supreme court ruled that Filburn growing his own wheat affected the commerce clause. Here are a list of questions I am unclear about when it comes to the commerce clause:

  1. Can the commerce clause be used to control what you can and cannot eat/buy?
  3. Can any building receiving natural gas be considered commerce?
  5. What limits did US v. Lopez really put on the commerce clause?
  7. US v. Jones the supreme court ruled a private dwelling doesn’t count as federal commerce, what if someone in the dwelling received federal aid like food stamps, health care, or low income housing/section 8?
  9. What was the original intent of the commerce when created by the founders?
  11. Did Obama-Care expand the commerce clause with its health care plan?
  13. What really counts as trade within the commerce clause?

I am looking for a variety of different interpretations of the commerce clause followed with a discussion from different viewpoints.
Click to expand...

As a libertarian I go with most limited interpretation, that the power to regulate commerce means the govt can make laws to make sure commerce is regular, ie free flowing and unbiased. Indeed this was what the writers of the constitution said.

I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States...Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all.
Click to expand...

Jefferson
 
TurtleDude said:
until FDR came along, the CC was never used to give the federal government any power over a private citizen acting within his own sovereign state
Click to expand...

Until FDR came along, private citizens were at the mercy of their employers and had no Federal right to collective bargaining.
 
James972 said:
??? commerce clause was meant to promote free trade between states and nations. Our libcommies perverted it to give central govt libcommie control of the economy that our Founders never intended them to have.
Click to expand...

Support your argument with facts. What makes you think you know what the Founders meant? It's the Constitution. That is the central government by definition and the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce among foreign countries and among the states. It has nothing to do with promoting free trade.

1. Congress cannot regulate what you eat and buy but it can regulate the market of goods that cross state lines.
2. The sale or purchase of natural gas is commerce.
3. US vs Lopez merely determined that wheat was an interstate market whether or not an individual farmer's product was moved across state lines. Regulation of local commerce that does not substantially affect interstate commerce cannot be regulated under the commerce clause.
4. This question makes no sense to me. A dwelling is not commerce. The federal government can certainly regulate food stamps, health care or low income housing as they are federal programs to start with.
5. The intent of the commerce clause was to give Congress authority to regulate commercial activity among the states since individual state laws could not do so.
6. The ACA did not expand the commerce clause. Health insurance has always been considered interstate commerce.
7.The Commerce Clause does not define what is trade. It is up to Congress to determine what is trade.
 
Rich2018 said:
A foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.

Now who does that NOT include ?
Click to expand...

It doesn't include anything that isn't a foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.
 
Cordelier said:
Until FDR came along, private citizens were at the mercy of their employers and had no Federal right to collective bargaining.
Click to expand...

not relevant to this discussion
 
Rich2018 said:
You are in a state so it includes you



Anything that they can argue can be covered by "commerce"
Click to expand...

You mean commerce among the several states? I'm not a state, are you?
 
Cordelier said:
Completely relevant... the Wagner Act is constitutionally grounded on the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

do you consider Wickard v Filburn to be a proper interpretation by FDR's court?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom