Could the United States function with a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause?

Interesting post, ImprobableJoe. I like your moxie.

A little socialism would be good for us? Well, get ready. A bunch of people are fixing to passionately disagree.

However, you bring up an interesting point. Every U.S. citizen lives with some degree of socialism.

Social Security? Redistributing my tax dollars to pay for your grandpa's bills. Socialism.

Live in Tennessee? You pay something called TennCare. My tax money goes to pay for some poor or lazy guy's medicine. Socialism.

How many people bought a house with some form of government down payment assistance or a subsidized loan? Umm... that was tax money. Yours and mine. Socialism.

Got a tax rebate under Bush? Look at that! Socialism.

Do I agree that more socialism would be a good thing? Well, I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I believe one of the quickest fixes for many of our problems is to remove a lot of the socialist things from our system. But, I do see your point about socialism for the big companies. That I agree with completely. I know the Commerce Clause gives the government the right to do that to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, but it has been a gross misuse of tax money.
 
Certainly "states rights" is a meaningless term, used to restrict freedom and equality.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain of that at all. For example, in the Raich case, the State of California, acting in the traditional capacity of states to regulate medicine, had said that citizens meeting certain criteria could legally grow and use cannabis plants for medical purposes.

The federal government came along and said no, if one person can do it so can millions (the "aggregation principle), and if millions do it, it can affect interstate commerce (the "substantial effects" test).

Seems to me that in that case, the "states rights" argument was advancing more individual freedom, while the "commerce clause/federal power" argument was restricting it.

A very similar argument occurred in the US v Oregon case about physician assisted suicide. Once again in that case we saw the State of Oregon affording a freedom to their citizens that did not meet with federal approval. Once again the argument was "states rights vs commerce power of the feds" with the states rights side arguing for greater individual freedom.

In the famous Lopez case, the argument was that state and local governments, if anyone, should make regulations about how close to a school you can be with a gun. The counter-argument was that guns near school affect (guess what?) interstate commerce, and are a federal matter. Once again, the states rights argument favored greater individual freedom and less central control from the federal government.

In the Stewart case, the 9th Circuit initially said that a homegrown machine gun for personal use is not subject to federal regulation under the commerce power. The "states rights" argument says that we should be allowed to design and build our own machine guns for personal use without federal interference, while the "commerce clause/federal power" side says that the feds have the power to ban that activity. Yet again, the states rights argument is the one that affords more individual freedom, and the federal power argument is on the side of restricting individual freedom.

It's true that over a hundred years ago, the states rights argument was used in a racist way to restrict freedom for some people, but those 4 examples show which way the tide has turned. It seems to me that these days, the commerce clause/federal control argument is the one without substance, and the one used most often to restrict freedom. Got 4 or more recent examples going the other way?
 
A constitutional convention would be disasterous. the new constitution would simply legalize all of these bad and currently illigal,but ignored practices. it would result in a drastic increase in federal powers. We would become the USRA, United Socialist Republic of America.
 
Environmental laws. Pollution, especially air and water pollution does not respect state boundaries so it is relatively easy to put together a pretty good argument that at least some environmental protection at the federal level is quite legal.
Click to expand...

That's more of an argument that it is necessary, but that doesn't make it legal or constitutional. To make it legal, you would have to point out where in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution the Congress might get the power to make environmental laws.

Congress, lacking imagination, simply points to the commerce clause these days when anyone challenges their authority, and the courts nod sagely and move on. At least, that's what usually happens...

Your comment brought to mind something I heard about during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts. It seems the environmentalist lobbies didn't like his nomination. Why? Anti-environment, of course. OK, so what did he do that was "anti-environment" while being a judge?

He stated in a ruling that he did not believe that toads found only in California were subject to federal authority under the interstate commerce clause. Believe it or not, what I found amazing was NOT that a court is even seriously considering the question of whether an indigenous California toad is interstate commerce or not. What I found amazing was what Roberts said NEXT. He went on to say that he might uphold the Endangered Species Act on some other grounds, but he did not think the toads were interstate commerce.

OK, what other grounds? Go ahead. Look at article 1, section 8 of our Constitution and find for me the authority by which Congress might write a law like the ESA. Oh, and don't use the commerce clause. Good luck with that. If you get frustrated and can't find it, just remember that the Chief Justice says it's in there someplace. (I can't find it either.)
 
"promote the general welfare"

OK, what other grounds? Go ahead. Look at article 1, section 8 of our Constitution and find for me the authority by which Congress might write a law like the ESA
Click to expand...

The second (or is it actually the first?), most abused element in the Constitution, after commerce, is in the preamble. The phrase, "promote the general welfare", is, however, a reason for the Contitution, not an authority granted to the government. In many folks minds, however, it justifies the exercise of umlimited federal authority to establish the most welfare for the people owning those minds.

Original question:
Could the United States continue as we know it if the Commerce Clause were interpreted more narrowly? If everything from the USDA to FDA to medical devices to gasoline in your fuel tank were suddenly regulated by the state instead of the Feds, would quality of life improve or would we see life become more complex and regulatory?
Click to expand...

Some have already addressed this, but much of what the USDA, FDA, and other federal groups does is related directly to interstate commerce. Also, much of what they do is NOT related to interstate commerce. It is the latter that we really want to get rid of. Let's also throw in the Department of Agriculture which is more interested inpromoting food businesses than helping farming/farmers. The Department of Education (nothing to do with interstate commerce although justified by the commerce clause), and many, many laws and regulations.

I assume that we would face a little short term choas if we severly limited the authority of the commerce clause, but we would regain a lot of rights and freedom by doing so.
 
ftd, I believe you are confusing the phrase of the preamble with how the phrase from the end of Article I section 8 clause 1 has been used:

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;

The underlined portion above, has been abused since it was penned. National Bank? the general welfare clause was used. Luisiana Purchase? National Forests, et al, the general welfare clause.

The power to tax was given for 2 purposes: To pay the debts of the U.S. To provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S. In context, the U.S. is the central government, not the citizens (the people) of a nation.
 
Antipitas,
Thanks for the correction. I usually read the whole Constitution before commenting on it, as it gets smokey for me between what it actually says and what I think it says. I was lazy this time and appreciate you fixing my error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top