The Congress shall have Power....regulate Commerce ....among the several states.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
That I grow my own food in my land and feed my family with it is not a direct participation in interstate commerce.
BTS
Gun Laws and States rights
by Deputy Dog 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
John Doe
Note the lack of definition for interstate commerce burns.
-
John Doe
That I grow my own food in my land and feed my family with it is not a direct participation in interstate commerce.
You're changing words again burns. You can't do that. Every word is important. The argument has never been growing wheat on your land is a direct "participation" in interstate commerce. The argument is that it has a direct "effect" on interstate commerce.
-
BurnTheShips
Note the lack of definition for interstate commerce burns.
First, at the time of ratification, commerce meant trade, not production or manufacture. Second, the clause applied to commerce "among the several states", leaving intrastate trade to be regulated by the states themselves. Third, for over a century between ratification and the FDR court, there were few CC cases. The ones that did arise were regarding individual states that tried to restrict interstate commerce. Up until the 30's, the more restrivcive view of the CC was what prevailed in the interpretation of the powers of the Federal gov. The Consitution does not grant the Fed the power to regulate ALL commerce, just commerce between states.
BTS
-
BurnTheShips
The argument is that it has a direct "effect" on interstate commerce.
Were there any findings that this was the case? Was there any evidence?
No. Only a supposition. Both Filburn and Raich used an ag product that had never been bought or sold and had never crossed between one state or another, and had no demonstrable affect on the national market.
BTS
-
John Doe
Were there any findings that this was the case? Was there any evidence?
No. Only a supposition.
So, you agree that the decision was not a perversion of the commerce clause, but was a valid interpretation based on insufficient evidence? That's a far cry from the same thing. Intellectual honesty requires you to accurately portray what you're arguing against. Was Filburn a good decision? I'm undecided. I do know, however, that it was not the decision you were portraying it to be.
-
BurnTheShips
So, you agree that the decision was not a perversion of the commerce clause
You are twisting things JD and putting words in my mouth, and then you go ahead and accuse me of being dishonest. Whatever. I have better things to do.
BTS
-
John Doe
You are twisting things JD and putting words in my mouth, and then you go ahead and accuse me of being dishonest. Whatever. I have better things to do.
BTS
Show me where I've twisted what you've said. Is admitting mistake difficult for you?
-
John Doe
I should point out that it's been over a year since I read Filburn, and I've read a lot of cases since then. Over the next few days though, I'll try to reexamine it and post some quotes on the issues raised.
-
Deputy Dog
From what I hear, it's the word "regulate" that is at question? Originally the word meant; to make regular or common. Not to control as it's come to mean today.
Many feel that the current make up of the supreme court would rule in favor of the states in this matter.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;