Tag Archive: Commerce Clause


Under Socialism, There’s No Such Thing As Consumer Protection

 

 

 

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes ?

 

 

” For the victims of governmental fraud, the only recourse is political, which is to say that it entails relying on the same government that perpetrated the fraud.

When it enacted ObamaCare, Congress relied on its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded that authority, but only with respect to one particular provision, the mandate that all individuals purchase medical insurance. There is little dispute that under more or less settled case law, Congress would be within its authority if it simply nationalized the insurance industry, or any other industry.

The regulation of commerce is a necessary and vital governmental function. Consumers and honest businesses need protection from unscrupulous market participants. That is nearly impossible when an industry is owned, or effectively controlled, by the government. To socialize an industry is to put it in a position to regulate itself. It legalizes fraud by recasting it as mere “political lies.” “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Bill In Missouri Would Test Limits In Nullifying U.S. Law

 

” Unless a handful of wavering Democrats change their minds, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature is expected to enact a statute next month nullifying all federal gun laws in the state and making it a crime for federal agents to enforce them here. A Missourian arrested under federal firearm statutes would even be able to sue the arresting officer.

The law amounts to the most far-reaching states’ rights endeavor in the country, the far edge of a growing movement known as “nullification” in which a state defies federal power.

The Missouri Republican Party thinks linking guns to nullification works well, said Matt Wills, the party’s director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. “It’s probably one of the best states’ rights issues that the country’s got going right now,” he said.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Half Way There

 

Tenth Amendment Center

 

” Support for decentralizing power and rolling back overreaching federal acts continues to gain traction within the “mainstream” political establishment. Even some who generally support the DC-centric system seem to be recognizing that the federal government has completely torn itself away from the constitutional moorings meant to limit its power.

New York University Law professor Barry Friedman recently joined the Tenth Amendment Center in calling for a rollback of federal authority over both guns and weed.

Friedman’s Huffington Post article stands out in its consistent application of constitutional principle across the political aisle. The NYU professor grasps what eludes many American partisans: if the feds can control marijuana, they can control weed – and vice versa. And maybe they shouldn’t exercise quite so much control.

Friedman opens his article outlining the recent Kansas law nullifying federal gun acts, specifically provisions involving firearms manufactured and remaining within the state. He even includes the obligatory misapplication of the supremacy clause. But then, he suddenly goes all “tenther” on us.

Still, Kansas may be on to something. As the brewing collision of federal and state marijuana laws makes clear, there has to be some room for the states to have a say in what goods their citizens can possess and use. Eighteen states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and Washington and Colorado just did so even for recreational use. The problem is, what Colorado allows, federal law prohibits. Can the states opt-out from the federal laws?

But Friedman proposes a solution that illustrates the root of the problem: allowing the federal government to determine the extent of its own power.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina Lawmaker Reintroduces Bill to Exempt State from Federal Gun Ban

 

 

 

” South Carolina Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) has reintroduced a bill that would exempt any firearm, accessory or ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of the Palmetto State from federal regulations.

Invoking states rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Bright’s legislation – known as the ‘South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act’ – states:

“A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Carolina and that remains within the borders of South Carolina is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

 

 

 

 

 

” The ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ movement has its origins in Montana, where a gun maker by the name of Gary Marbut got sick and tired of the federal government’s overreach with respect to his business.  After closely examining the Constitution, in particular the commerce clause, Marbut conceived the Firearms Freedom Act in 2009. ”

 

 

 

A Call To Arms

Matthew Continetti

 

   ” Even before the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare on Thursday, one could detect among liberals a certain desperate willingness to pronounce the health care debate “over.” The message from the president and his surrogates—from the flacks at the DNC to the hacks at MSNBC—was that it was time, to use a favorite phrase of the left, to move on.

“We’re not going to re-litigate health care reform,” President Obama told an audience in Philadelphia earlier this month. The American people “understand we don’t need to refight this battle over health care,” he said at a fundraiser in Atlanta on Tuesday. “What the country cannot afford to do is refight the political battles of two years ago,”he said after the Court issued its decision.

But Obama is wrong. The health care battle is not settled. On the contrary: Justice Roberts’s opinion has airlifted the combatants to a different battlefield altogether. By affirming the individual mandate not on the grounds of the Commerce Clause but the congressional power to tax, Roberts has, intentionally or not, exposed the president as a liar, and as willing to raise taxes on middle class. “

 

 

 

Independent Journal Review   

  ” Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

 

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.”

Professor Jacobson is taking a much dimmer view .

  ” What is most disturbing is the judicial activism which took the Chief Justice from the Commerce Clause to the taxing power in order
to save the legislation.

   It required, as Justice Scalia noted in the dissent, a rewriting of the legislation, and the enactment
of a tax via judicial fiat where the legislature knowingly and deliberately had refused to do so. “

  With all eyes on SCOTUS today we’ve deliberately remained silent . Not without opinion , but out of deference to the multitude of bloggers with legal backgrounds that can offer the public their expertise .

    We are from the business world and as such can offer only common sense and a historical kind of sense as to our understanding of the Constitution , the Founders and their ideas of liberty .

  That being said , our initial reaction to the Roberts Court’s finding was a feeling of being sold down the river . We are sorry to say that this post at Volokh Conspiracy merely serves to amplify the feeling that Roberts caved to media/political pressure .

   Tax , Commerce , who cares what you call it ? A Mandate is a Mandate . Where does that fact that the citizens can be forced to BUY something fit into the concept of individual liberty ?

” Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion “