More Commerce Clause Clownery

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Several months ago, I wrote a blog post titled, “Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to do Everything.” Whenever politicians are questioned about their totalitarian actions and asked what gives them the power to commence such actions, they have one standard response: the interstate commerce clause. This is the established response of politicians and their apologists, and it replaces what would otherwise be no response. This has become a big joke that’s being questioned by a whole lot of keen folks. Here’s another such event described in a recent article on CNSNews:

The day after the House approved the health care bill, a reporter asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the lawsuits some states were threatening against the legislation on the grounds that the provision forcing all Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.

“I think there’s pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,” Gibbs said, without offering any substantive explanation.

Later in the briefing, another reporter pressed Gibbs on the question. “You say there’s established law, established precedent,” said the reporter. “On what? What is it? What is the established precedent?”

“On the regulation of interstate commerce,” said Gibbs.

If you have not seen the Judge’s latest sound off, watch it. This is one of his best moments ever. As Napolitano wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Here is more from the Judge on the commerce clause.

 

Now see this excellent, short commentary from Stephan Kinsella on the commerce clause and its intentions. Also note the Jeffrey Rogers Hummel article he points to – “The Constitution as a Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists.”

Here’s my two cents on the health care tyranny being shoved down our throats: as a friend of mine said recently, eventually force will have to be met with force.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to More Commerce Clause Clownery

  1. blackseabrew says:

    March 28th, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Force met with force? Better watch out Ms. De Coster. CNN will call you out on inciting violence. They should know since they were the mouthpiece for the WMD ploy for the war in Iraq.

  2. Bob Roddis says:

    March 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    I’ve generally found that I can get a “progressive” to admit that the Napolitano interpretation of the commerce clause might perhaps be the original and intended interpretation, but they will then insist that it must be reinterpreted with the times. Like we know understand economics due to Keynes. However, when shown that the depression of 1920 (caused by the Fed and WWI) was ended quickly with high interest rates and the slashing of taxes and spending, they are left speechless. Since “doing nothing” cures depressions and “doing something” causes them, this sounds like a good reason to adhere to the “doing nothing” interpretation of the commerce clause. Further, anyone unfamiliar with the 1920 depression should watch Tom Woods’ excellent speech on the subject on youtube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

  3. Michael says:

    March 28th, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    “Force with force”? Sorry Karen. Talk like that is only going to get you on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s radar. ;)

    @Bob Roddis: Ask your progressive friend about the Forth Amendment: Doesn’t stay anything about the government putting its nose in your email. Or how about the First Amendment guarantees? Doesn’t say anything about not slandering the Congress. And of course, the Second Amendment surely is limited to muzzle-loaded long rifles, right?

    The “reinterpretation” argument is about as sound as the “interstate commerce clause”. If either were true, then Judge Napolitano’s point is validated: The state can claim whatever it wants to be under its ever-growing purview.

  4. Iluvatar says:

    March 30th, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    (This is -not- short, hmmm…)

    As Ron Paul has said on more than one occasion, health is a health issue not a political issue. And health is a service and not a right.

    This (unconstitutional/illegal) health care bill is nothing other than a -yet another- redistribution of wealth. Id est, it is a (disgusting & rude) form of welfare.

    @Bob & Michael: This is why I feel there is such a telling need for a re-ratification of the constitution. When you have to argue as to interpretation, you are just where the lawyers want it to be – Twilight Zone.

    Hey let’s do a simple experiment shall we? Let’s take a gander @ Article 1, Section 2 shall we? Here it is from Wiki; it’s about the role of the census:

    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”

    Did you spot the back door there? What in the world does “and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” really mean??? And where is it stated that they just need a number? And what does 3/5 of all other persons mean? See my point? This document, if you can even understand it at all, is so poorly written that one is in deep trouble right out of the gate!@!

    @Bob: Hey that was a good take on 1920. I had wiki’d this about 4 months ago. WG Harding is my new hero (just kidding):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

    I still can’t find the wiki site that had WG Hardings comments, but here they also are:”

    We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing which enlarges the evil, and we will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility which attend Republican capacity. We promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life.
    Let us call to all the people for thrift and economy, for denial and sacrifice if need be, for a nationwide drive against extravagance and luxury, to a recommittal to simplicity of living, to that prudent and normal plan of life which is the health of the republic. There hasn’t been a recovery from the waste and abnormalities of war since the story of mankind was first written, except through work and saving, through industry and denial, while needless spending and heedless extravagance have marked every decay in the history of nations”

    Sure seems to put Keynes in its place, huh?

    @Karen: your ending comment about force: I think that is exactly what the government wants. B/c then it would make ligitimate the government’s decision to enforce martial law and put their troops in our towns.

    I give us 5 years. Dusk/dawn curfews & martial law.

    As always, apologies for the poor typing/”engilsh”.

  5. Barbar Willing says:

    July 30th, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    The Bengal is beautiful. Does anyone know what kind of cat the orangey one is, featured from about 1:25 to 1:35 in the video above? We love its “cattitude”. Thx.

Leave a Reply