Explain this whole Wall Street protester thing!

beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3427998
Interstate commerce clause
IMHO the commercence clause was never intended to require the federal government dictate all manners of good production but to insure that goods could move from state to state unempeeded by state boundries. So rail road guages are controlled, ditto communication frequencies, roads and so on.
but over the years the supreme courts as expanded that power down to the means of production to the point where a farmer growing corn that is totally consumed on his farm is subject to federal dictates.
To me that is beyond what the government should be doing. I should be able to determine what fuel economy my car gets, how much water flushes my toillette, what type of light bulbs I buy all by myself. I don't need nor should the interstate commerence clause dictate the federal government make those decisions for me.
my .02
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428002
IMHO the commercence clause was never intended to require the federal government dictate all manners of good production but to insure that goods could move from state to state unempeeded by state boundries. So rail road guages are controlled, ditto communication frequencies, roads and so on.
but over the years the supreme courts as expanded that power down to the means of production to the point where a farmer growing corn that is totally consumed on his farm is subject to federal dictates.
To me that is beyond what the government should be doing. I should be able to determine what fuel economy my car gets, how much water flushes my toillette, what type of light bulbs I buy all by myself. I don't need nor should the interstate commerence clause dictate the federal government make those decisions for me.
my .02
I don't disagree with that. Heck they use that clause to make Marijuana illegal. Still trying to figure out how a seed planted, grown and smoked in California effects interstate commerce but they get away with it.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
"I think the point you are missing is it's the government's job to regulate corporations."
"Interstate commerce clause"
Article I Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
I am not seeing corporations in there.
I see regulations between the U.S. and foreign Nations.
I see regulations between the States
I see regulate between the U.S. and Indian Tribes.
I think you are saying that just because they have done it they are allowed to do it. I say no, the Constitution does not give them the power to regulate corporations.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

"I think the point you are missing is it's the government's job to regulate corporations."

"Interstate commerce clause"

Article I Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I am not seeing corporations in there.
I see regulations between the U.S. and foreign Nations.
I see regulations between the States
I see regulate between the U.S. and Indian Tribes.

I think you are saying that just because they have done it they are allowed to do it. I say no, the Constitution does not give them the power to regulate corporations.
it also doesnt state colonies specifically, therefore we can't have commerce dealings with puerto rico.
the fed basically sets the regulations for all commerce according to the constitution. if a corporation resides in a state, foreign country, or indian tribe....it must operate by the commerce regulations set forth by the fed for that entity. so they do have the right.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
I think we really should take these people seriously, because they have valid ideas, cognitive thought, and are just all around smart guys...
http://mrctv.org/videos/occupy-toronto-man-was-my-tent-sniffing-my-girlfriend%E2%80%99s-feet%E2%80%9D
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428008
"I think the point you are missing is it's the government's job to regulate corporations."
"Interstate commerce clause"
Article I Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
I am not seeing corporations in there.
I see regulations between the U.S. and foreign Nations.
I see regulations between the States
I see regulate between the U.S. and Indian Tribes.
I think you are saying that just because they have done it they are allowed to do it. I say no, the Constitution does not give them the power to regulate corporations.
I believe they have the right to regulate corporations on issues that pertain to interstate commerce. I don't think they have the right to set fees or salaries. Even though I think it's wrong they even have the power to tell us how many miles per gallon a car has to get because it affects interstate commerce.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
"the original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states" I think we forget the intent of the framers too often and adopt what the "judicial system" has done to circumvent them.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
and in Jefferson's words.........
"“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”
...
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.""
The commerce clause was to regulate the ways the states dealt with each other, the U.S dealt with foreign nations and the way the U. S. dealt with Indian nations.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428003
I don't disagree with that. Heck they use that clause to make Marijuana illegal. Still trying to figure out how a seed planted, grown and smoked in California effects interstate commerce but they get away with it.
good luck with that.
Actually is was a 1942 supreme court decision that expanded the interstate commerce to include methods of production.
Specifically is corn grown and consumed on one farmer's farm we subject to quotes.
the court ruled it was because the farmer growing the corn that corn was affecting the interstae price of corn.
This will obviously continue until the current living breathing constitution judges are replaced with judges that interpret the constitution in the original way it was written with meanings at that time.
IMHO the founding farthers specifically did not want an all powerful federal government controlling all aspects of society. they just wanted to make sure goods could be bought, sold and transferred between states without the states erecting barries. for instance under the articles of confederation, colonies even had different monies. But overcoming those barriers does not IMHO mean the federal government has the power to regulate all aspects of our economy.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428272
good luck with that.
Actually is was a 1942 supreme court decision that expanded the interstate commerce to include methods of production.
Specifically is corn grown and consumed on one farmer's farm we subject to quotes.
the court ruled it was because the farmer growing the corn that corn was affecting the interstae price of corn.
This will obviously continue until the current living breathing constitution judges are replaced with judges that interpret the constitution in the original way it was written with meanings at that time.
IMHO the founding farthers specifically did not want an all powerful federal government controlling all aspects of society. they just wanted to make sure goods could be bought, sold and transferred between states without the states erecting barries. for instance under the articles of confederation, colonies even had different monies. But overcoming those barriers does not IMHO mean the federal government has the power to regulate all aspects of our economy.
Well see that is the thing all, and I mean all (I usually don't use a broad brush) liberals refuse to admit. There are plenty of writings and records to determine EXACTLY what the founders intended. The majority so feared a strong central government they didn't even initially create a standing army. Several stated their support for the second amendment was to prevent tyranny within our own government.
What amazes me is the word abortion or privacy doesn't appear in the constitution yet the same dolts who can read the second amendment and not see a right to own a gun believes there is an all encompassing right to privacy that only applies to abortions.
Reef(Pro Gun and Pro Choice)Raff
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428296
Well see that is the thing all, and I mean all (I usually don't use a broad brush) liberals refuse to admit. There are plenty of writings and records to determine EXACTLY what the founders intended. The majority so feared a strong central government they didn't even initially create a standing army. Several stated their support for the second amendment was to prevent tyranny within our own government.
What amazes me is the word abortion or privacy doesn't appear in the constitution yet the same dolts who can read the second amendment and not see a right to own a gun believes there is an all encompassing right to privacy that only applies to abortions.
Reef(Pro Gun and Pro Choice)Raff
The right to own guns and abortion are not things to be regulated by the fed. They are states and peoples rights. The fed has no business in either.
Remember the constitution is a fed limiting document. And if we continually look at it in that light..........
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringe
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
So this says the fed will not infringe upon this right of a state to keep a well regulated militia or the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is left up to the states.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428426
The right to own guns and abortion are not things to be regulated by the fed. They are states and peoples rights. The fed has no business in either.
Remember the constitution is a fed limiting document. And if we continually look at it in that light..........
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringe
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
So this says the fed will not infringe upon this right of a state to keep a well regulated militia or the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is left up to the states.
As long as you can ultimately get your gun government does have the right to regulate ownership. That is a Supreme Court ruling I actually agree with.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
I dunno, it seems right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, pretty much means you can't go around killing people...
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428537
The supreme court had no "right" or power to wiegh into that arguement.
Yeah, they do. Once they rule the only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment. Thats why its so important to get rid of 0bama. Kagen wasn't a bad choice but Sotomayer is a racist loon and we don't want to risk giving 0bama to add another crazy to the court.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428553
Yeah, they do. Once they rule the only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment. Thats why its so important to get rid of 0bama. Kagen wasn't a bad choice but Sotomayer is a racist loon and we don't want to risk giving 0bama to add another crazy to the court.
They're both terrible for our country. Kegan was instrumental is writing legal proofs for the legality of Obamacare... And quite frankly congress can thumb it's nose at the courts and pass whatever laws it wants. And then you'd have ot go through the whole process again, to get it overturned...
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/388420/explain-this-whole-wall-street-protester-thing/120#post_3428653
They're both terrible for our country. Kegan was instrumental is writing legal proofs for the legality of Obamacare... And quite frankly congress can thumb it's nose at the courts and pass whatever laws it wants. And then you'd have ot go through the whole process again, to get it overturned...
Yeah but Kegan is at least in the mainstream of political ideology. As far as congress going around the court they can't because the second they passed a bill that conflicted with previous rulings it would be struck down by another judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top