Poll: Federal Wars on Guns/Drugs; Constitutional?

[publius]

There is a discussion/poll at the moment over on Free Republic on this issue, and if you're currently unemployed, you might have time to read all the interesting and informative comments.

I thought it timely in view of the nomination of "machine gun Sammy" to the Supreme Court.

 

[publius]

The poll question was cut off, possibly due to operator error.

Do you think the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution authorizes federal laws against narcotics and firearms?

 

[Janitor]

I see the Interstate Commerce clauses being used as a method for congress to exert their control over issues where their involvement would otherwise be seen as unconstitutional.

-

 

[Cacique500]

On the History channel they just ran a series of shows regarding different types of drugs...their history, social impacts, laws, etc. The shows were called 'Hooked - Illegal Drugs' and each one was about a different 'family' of drugs.

They went into pretty good detail about how the .gov 'bypassed' the lengthy amendment process by using the ICC. Can't remember the specifics but I believe it was in the early 30's. I remember that the legislation was rammed through the process by using scare tactics on the public and was definitely unconstitutional.

Very intersesting shows if you catch them...they talk about how in the early 20's there was still 'wild' marijuana growing along the river near Washington, D.C. I've heard the term 'weed' but never realized that it literally was a weed growing all over the place. Also talked about the use of cocaine in the original Coca-Cola formula (no wonder it was a good hangover cure! )

 

[Chris Rhines]

Of course not.

However, bringing up the Commerce Clause leads to another question entirely - why does Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce, or commerce of any kind, for that matter?

- Chris

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

There is a discussion/poll at the moment over on Free Republic on this issue, and if you're currently unemployed, you might have time to read all the interesting and informative comments.

I thought it timely in view of the nomination of "machine gun Sammy" to the Supreme Court.

Of course they're not constitutional. I don't believe that there is anyone in government who actually believes they are. The Federal Government is one of few and defined powers. Those powers are clearly defined in the words of the founding document. Just in case that wasn't already clear, however, the Founders gave us the Tenth Amendment. All powers not listed herein, belong to the States and the people. To quote Madison:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Anything having to do with your property, as a private individual who is not currently in the midst of an interstate transaction with said property as the object of said transaction, is a State matter. Furthermore, all police powers are entirely matters of State concern. Congress can pass no laws in that realm, as they were never delegated said power by the States.

I suspect that Madison knew something about the US Constitution, and its intended meaning.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The edit feature doesn't seem to be working, so I have to make a new post.

As for the Commerce Clause, it's meaning, in light of the words of Madison and of the Tenth Amendment, could not possibly be what the SCOTUS claims. It was merely a power to regulate commerce between the States, i.e., to establish laws about commerce, i.e., trade. What the SCOTUS has done is to claim that since everything could potentially someday enter into interstate commerce, therefore the Federal Government is empowered to regulate everything. This, of course, turns the system of limited Federal Government, and Federalism, on its head, turning it into the exact opposite of what the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the Founders called for. It doesn't even pass the straight face test. The SCOTUS decisions in this regard amount to treason, and the justices should have immediately been impeached, brought up on charges and then hanged, but since their decisions were favored by Congress, there was no incentive to do so.

This brings up another issue. Our system, as originally established, made the Senate a body which represented the interests of State governments as against usurpation by the Federal Government. This was the only ordinary check the States had on Federal usurpation. This singular check, however, was done away with by the Seventeenth Amendment. It was only after this alteration that the SCOTUS was able to get away with usurping State powers by a disingenuous misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause. Had the Senate still been a body answerable to the State legislatures and governors, they would have impeached and removed those justices, and brought those justices up on charges of treason.

 

[pcf]

Of course not.

However, bringing up the Commerce Clause leads to another question entirely - why does Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce, or commerce of any kind, for that matter?

- Chris

One of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, is that it allowed states to impose protectionist trade barriers. Trade barriers led to disagreements between the states, which wasn't good for the newly founded country. 1787 rolls around and the rest is history.

The purpose of the commerce clause was to eliminate trade barriers between the states, in effect creating a tax free zone.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The commerce clause enables the fedgov to regulate interstate commerce.

Regulate, means to make regular.

In short, they have the authority to design what the correct form of an invoice and a bill of lading should look like, in the same way that the the law can decide what the correct form of a will and testament is.

 

[Zundfolge]

Oops ... I clicked yes ... please take one vote from the yes column and place it in the no (should know better then posting before I've had my coffee)

 

[GunGoBoom]

Obviously not. Well, obvious to anyone who isn't a 'learned' scotus member.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The commerce clause enables the fedgov to regulate interstate commerce.

Regulate, means to make regular.

In short, they have the authority to design what the correct form of an invoice and a bill of lading should look like, in the same way that the the law can decide what the correct form of a will and testament is.

You have it exactly right. The kinds of regulations you find in the Uniform Commercial Codes of the various States are what the Commerce Clause refers to. It only regards commercial transactions across State lines. The objects of those transactions (yo-yos, corn, lap top computers, guns) are only regulatable by the Federal Government during the time in which they are actually involved in an interstate commercial transaction. Prior to that time, and after the transaction is complete, the Federal Government cannot Constitutionally touch any of those objects. They are internal State concerns, or entirely private concerns, at those points. Any other interpretation would grant a plenary power to the Federal Government to regulate every aspect of our individual personal lives, which is exactly what has been claimed by the SCOTUS lo these many decades.

Furthermore, since the Senate is no longer at the service of the State Governments, there is no one any longer empowered to challenge this notion. At least no one with an incentive to challenge it. Certainly, no one in the Federal Government is going to challenge an increase in their own power. The system of checks and balances is gone, and we are reaping the consequences.

 

[jefnvk]

why does Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce, or commerce of any kind, for that matter?

The original reasoning was rational, as pcf mentioned. States having their own currency, imposing tariffs on imports from other states, charging people to cross the border, etc. None of that would be all that good for the country.

 

[hugh damright]

When the US wanted jurisdiction over alcohol, the Constitution had to be amended to delegate them the power. It seems reasonable to conclude that if the US wants legitimate jurisdiction over guns/drugs that the Constitution needs to be amended to delegate them the power. It's not as if guns/drugs travel in interstate commerce and alcohol does not. Maybe what they'd need to do is to modify the Tenth Amendment to say that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, but only if it can be proven that said powers do not have and can never have any relation whatsoever with interstate commerce.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

IF, and only IF,

The ITEM IS ACTIVELY involved in interstate commerce...(ie guns being shipped from Texas to New York, interstate commerce..guns being transported from Houston to Austin,even if it uses the interstate highways likeI-10, this IS NOT interstate commerce...Duh

Just like the wheat in Wickard, which was being produced for private consumption, the amount made it able to be regulated....If this is the new definition of interstate commerce, then any person with more than,"X", of whatever item, is involved in interstate commerce without selling a thing...Wickard is where we got this intrastate non commercial ,"possession", of an item can be a felony crap from ...

 

[pcf]

The ITEM IS ACTIVELY involved in interstate commerce...(ie guns being shipped from Texas to New York,...

Even this is questionable under the so called "original intent," of course I'm not "educated". Changes made to the Articles of Confederation to form the Constitution are pragmatic. There was a problem that the states could not resolve between themselves, and the government could not address, the problem was rectified in the Constitution.

The problem was that the states would erect protectionist trade barriers that could cripple the nation. The cure, eliminate the barriers. The purpose of the commerce clause is not to allow regulation of trade between the states, but the oppposite, to ensure that trade between the states is unfettered.

 

[Justin]

It would seem to me that this discussion is far more fruitful when one keeps in mind that the definition of "regulation" as defined at the time of the Constitution meant to adjust something so that it worked smoothly and efficiently on its own.

It did not mean what it means today; to micromanage the everliving snot out of.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It would seem to me that this discussion is far more fruitful when one keeps in mind that the definition of "regulation" as defined at the time of the Constitution meant to adjust something so that it worked smoothly and efficiently on its own.

It did not mean what it means today; to micromanage the everliving snot out of.

Absolutely. It meant to make regular, not to fetter with restrictions and complex rules.

 

[publius]

The results so far, even without accounting for Zundfolge's slip of the mouse, mirror those on FR, where there were well over 1,000 votes when I last looked.

Of course, that thread does not have a "shut up and go away" option, so I guess the numbers are a little different here, but not much.

Since I don't see any moderators who voted for that option, to those fellow members who did: suggestion noted.

 

[X Who]

Joe Sobran said "The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government."

Edited to correct the quote.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think Joe Sobran said "The Constitution is no threat to our current form of government."

You've got to love Joe.

 

[publius]

Joe Sobran said "The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government."

That depends who is reading it. If Justice Scalia is reading it in light of the New Deal decision, Wickard vs. Filburn, the statement is true. If, on the other hand, Justice Thomas happens to get hold of it and read it in light of things like Federalist 45, the US Constitution poses a serious threat to our form of government, including the parts of it which regulate firearms.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That depends who is reading it. If Justice Scalia is reading it in light of the New Deal decision, Wickard vs. Filburn, the statement is true. If, on the other hand, Justice Thomas happens to get hold of it and read it in light of things like Federalist 45, the US Constitution poses a serious threat to our form of government, including the parts of it which regulate firearms.

I get your point, but you are, perhaps unintentionally, suggesting is that it has no objective meaning. This is false. The US Constitution has an objective meaning. It is only its interpretation or misinterpretation that changes with the reader. Thomas is a more objective reader than Scalia, so his interpretations are more in line with those who actually formulated the document, such as Madison, as related to us in Federalsit No. 45.

 

[publius]

Thomas is a more objective reader than Scalia, so his interpretations are more in line with those who actually formulated the document, such as Madison, as related to us in Federalsit No. 45.

And in a later letter:

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.