 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject: Roberts and Ending the Dem's use of the Commerce Clause |
 |
|
| Quote: |
To the Point News
ROSCOE AND ROBERTS
Behind The Lines
By Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Silent screams. Night sweats. Quiet desperation. The whispered dread of impending doom. Liberals are suffering all of these anxieties over soon-to-be Justice John Roberts – at least the smart ones are who know the stakes.
Those stakes go far beyond Roe v. Wade. Smart liberals know the entire gigantic edifice of Federal bureaucratic control over our lives, which they have been painstakingly building since the 1930s, has as its foundation one thin reed of six Constitutional words tortured beyond recognition. Invest those words with normal recognizable meaning, and thousands of Federal laws and regulations are defunct.
This is the conservatives’ and the libertarians’ dream, and the liberals’ nightmare. What keeps making the liberals sit bolt upright in bed is knowing there is nothing they can do to prevent their nightmare from coming true.
To understand why, we need to talk about a farmer named Roscoe Filburn from Montgomery County, Ohio, who grew 23 acres of wheat back in the 1930s.
|
So what exactly is Jack Wheeler referring to in the above article?
He is referring to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause.
Here is what the Roscoe case was about.
| Quote: | Link to Source
The case involved an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn who violated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 by growing 12 more acres of wheat than he had been allotted. Even if Filburn did not sell any of the extra wheat, the Court said, it would still "suppl[y] a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market."
If growing food for your own consumption has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce and is therefore subject to congressional regulation, it’s hard to see what area of life is beyond federal authority. After that decision, not surprisingly, the Court found a Commerce Clause rationale everywhere it looked. It even approved federal regulation of hotels and restaurants, because the former attract out-of-state guests and the latter buy supplies from other states. |
| Quote: |
Link to Wikipedia
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas as a separate power granted to Congress. It is therefore common to see references to the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause, each of which refers to the power granted to Congress in this section.
The use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to justify its legislation has been the subject of ongoing, strong constitutional and political disagreement since the 1930s. The government of the United States only has the power to regulate matters delegated to it by the Constitution; other powers are reserved to the States or to the people. Over the years, however, Congress has justified many types of legislation by claiming the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, however tenuously, and therefore falls under the purview of Congress under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has nearly always upheld this broad interpretation.
Early years 1824-1936
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Justice John Marshall ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the power to regulate interstate navigation: "Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse ... [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce' ... [T]he power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines."
In Swift v. United States (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meatpackers; although their activity was geographically "local," they had an important effect on the "current of commerce" and thus could be regulated under the commerce curve. The Court's decision halted price fixing. Stafford v. Wallace (1922) upheld a federal law regulating the Chicago meatpacking industry, because the industry was part of the interstate commerce of beef from ranchers to dinner tables. The stockyards "are but a throat through which the current [of commerce] flows," Justice Taft wrote, referring to the stockyards as "great national public utilities."
New Deal
The clause was the subject of conflict between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935-37 when the Court struck down several of the President's "New Deal" measures on the grounds that they encroached upon intrastate matters. After winning the 1936 election by a landslide he proposed a plan to appoint an additional justice for each unretired Justice over 70. Given the age of the current justices this permitted a court of up to 15. Roosevelt claimed that this was not to change the rulings of the Court, but to lessen the load on the older Justices, who he claimed were slowing the Court down.
There was widespread opposition to this plan, but in the end the New Deal did not need it to succeed. In what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine," Justice Owen Josephus Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes switched sides in 1937 and upheld the National Labor Relations Act, which gave the National Labor Relations Board extensive power over unions across the country. In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act, stating that growing wheat on one's own land for one's own consumption affected interstate commerce, and therefore under the Commerce Clause could be federally regulated
Civil rights
The wide interpretation of the scope of the commerce clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers; in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the Court ruled that the government could regulate Ollie's Barbecue, which served mostly local clientele but sold food that had previously moved across state lines; and in Daniel v. Paul (1969), the Court ruled that the government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.
Present day
In 1995, Justice William H. Rehnquist, delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Lopez (later clarified by United States v. Morrison). There, the Court ruled that Congress only had the power to regulate:
the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce Thus the government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools which had been banned by the law at issue. It was the first time since the conflict with President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936-37 that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Thomas argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation.
The Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states.
Many labelled the Rehnquist Court's commerce clause cases as a doctrine of "new federalism", breathing new life into the Constitution's limits on federal power (q.v. Constitution in Exile). However, the outer limits of that doctrine were delineated by Gonzales v. Raich, in which Justices Scalia and Kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana, over dissents from Justices O'Connor and Thomas, on commerce clause grounds. |
The Dem's should be staying up at night because their reign of control in our everyday lives is about to end. 
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Roberts and Ending the Dem's use of the Commerce Clause |
|
|
| SBD wrote: |
The Dem's should be staying up at night because their reign of control in our everyday lives is about to end.
SBD |
SBD,
I pray you are correct in your assumption...but Judge Roberts needs more than 'The Facts, ma'am, just the facts' to bring about his installation in the Supreme Court....the weight of all good cultists (I refer to liberals as cultists for obvious reasons) is coming to bear against Judge Roberts, just as it has during all of our presidents days in office. To see what I mean, begin by signing a petition to recommend Judge Roberts, a supporter of the Constitution, be given a fair up or down vote in the Senate...here:
petition is now live online at ThePetitionSite.com.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/737772009
NOW SIGN and SPREAD THE WORD
but while you're there, check out the other petitions...the site is 'a snake-pit' of liberal Bush Hate, all rounding up signatures for every faction of the Demon Party (including some anti-Roberts petitions). But they do 'appear' bi-partisan at the site (they took my [relatively  ] conservative petition)....I just would have liked to have been able to link the signers directly to their Senators to email every signature....for those of you so inclined, feel free to add a petition of your own.
Another conservative petition can be found in Geedunk relating to the Fraudulent Medal wearers fine or jailtime Bill.
http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20390
Let's support our next Supreme during this August Senate recess, with petitions showing our position.
Deuce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
