[FoRK] 20 Signs That The Culture Of Government Dependence Has Gotten Completely And Totally Out Of Control

mdw at martinwills.com mdw at martinwills.com
Wed Dec 7 10:31:12 PST 2011


> Are you using a mini-constitution on a cereal box or something?
>

Why are you re-writing the constitution to make your arguments?

> Just the first thing you run across when reading the real constitution
> that covers just about everything relevant is in Section 8:
> "and provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" seems to
> cover "mommy and daddy" pretty well.

>From your own citation: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts"     and     "provide
for the common Defence AND general Welfare of the United States; but all
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;"

Don't drop out the common Defence prior to the 'AND' since they are related!

The citation you just made has been interpreted by Constitutional scholars
to mean exactly what is says: The Congress shall have the power to provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" AGAINST
FOREIGN powers; a power the individual States lack.

> powers given to Congress with the Bill of Rights when you refer to the
> restriction that the government can only do what is permitted
> by the constitution.  The US Government can do anything required to
> individuals when accomplishing an allowed goal except infringe
> on declared rights.  The rights are broad, but allow for any action that
> doesn't infringe upon them if the government is doing it
> for a valid purpose.
>
> The other clause that is stretched to cover just about everything is the
> one that empowers control of Interstate Commerce.
>
> To put it more succinctly:
> The US government can do anything reasonably derived from the sometimes
> general purposes and powers specified in the constitution,
> except infringe upon individual's rights as specified in the Bill of
> Rights.
>

Wrong again!  In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) the Supreme
Court determined that prior decisions had identified three broad
categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce
power.

    First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate
commerce. see Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S.
241, 357 (1964);
    Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in
Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from
intrastate activities. see Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914);
    Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate
those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce
(i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate
commerce). see NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37
(1937); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 185, 195, n. 27 (1968).


> In this particular case, the responsibility to and rights of the children
> rule everything about the situation.  You could argue that
> the woman and the fathers should be punished for putting them in a
> precarious position or costing the state, and they probably
> should be taken away from her.  If you look at it purely economically,
> this would be the right thing to do to prevent various
> semi-predictable issues with those children as adults.
>

So again, how does the Commerce Clause make this possible?

--Martin--





More information about the FoRK mailing list