Re: The Media Aren't Liberal

Neither does your anarchist views!  There is a distinction between being in favor of individual freedoms and being a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and then misinterpreting the very document that you are relying upon to come up with, "Anarcho-Capitalism"!

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

ROTFLMAO!
Spreading the State Gospel hardly makes you an advocate of 'smaller' OR a 'realist'.

Regard$,
--MJ

Will gentlemen suffer me to ask them to point out to me, if they can, the power which this government possesses to adopt to system for the avowed purpose of encouraging particular branches of industry? The power to declare war may involve the right of bringing into existence the means of national defence. But to tell us we have a right to resort to theoretical speculations, as to the most convenient or profitable employments of industry, and that you can, by law, encourage certain pursuits and prohibit others, is to make this not merely a consolidated, but an unlimited government. If you can control and direct any, why not all the pursuits of your citizens? And if all, where is the limitation to your authority? Gentlemen surely forget that the supreme power is
not in the government of the United States. They do not remember that the several states are free and independent sovereignties, and that all power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the people of those sovereignties. When I say expressly delegated, I wish to be understood that no power can be exercised by Congress which is not expressly granted, or which is not clearly incident to such a grant. Now, when we call upon gentlemen to show their authority, they tell us it is derived from the authority to "regulate commerce."  But are regulation and annihilation synonymous terms? Does one include the other? Or are they not rather opposites, and does not the very idea of regulation exclude that of destruction? I rejoice, sir, to find that gentlemen refer us to commerce; for the very clause which expressly confers the right to regulate commerce, by saying nothing of the regulation of manufactures, or of agriculture,
or home industry, seems to demonstrate that they were intended to be put beyond our control, and to be reserved to the people of the states respectively.
-- Mr. Hayne, Debates of the Several ...

At 01:54 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:

"Commerce" is the transaction or sale of items, between one indiviual, or entity, or corporation, or Nation-State, and another. 
 
I don't need a Latin, or a 1850 dictionary to tell me what Commerce means.  The definition meant the same 235 years ago, as it does today.
 
There is also the issue of, "What Is", verus, "What ought to be".  Whether we like it.....Or we don't like it, our Federal Courts have determined the definition of "Commerce" and has given our Congress wide latitude.  (c.f.;  See Lopez v. United States, and Sullivan v. Louisiana) 
 
I am not a big fan of, nor do I trust our Federal Government.   I do my part, each and every day, to make them smaller, and accountable!
 
I am also a realist!
 
 
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

There you go again.

Praise be to the Almighty Federal Government, Amen.

Americans in 1913 UNDERSTOOD the Constitution -- apparently better than you -- and sought the proper course found in Article V.

Regulate, of course, does not mean ban.  An Individual, of course, is not a State, Nation or Indian Tribe.  Commerce is the exchange of title.

CO'MMERCE.n.s.

[commercium, Latin. It was anciently accented on

the last syllable.]

Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another;

interchange of any thing; trade; traffick.

Samuel Johnson 1750

To RE'GULATE.v.a. [regula, Lat.]

1. To adjust by rule or method.

   Nature, in the production of things, always

   designs them to partake of certain, regulated,

   established essences, which are to be the models

   of all things to be produced: this, in that crude

   sense, would need some better explication.

 Locke.

2. To direct.

    Regulate the patient in his manner of living.

 Wiseman.

    Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife

    Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life.

 Dryden.

Regard$,

--MJ

To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates

a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which

may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. 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. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations. -- Thomas Jefferson

At 01:31 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:

Hey Michael!

 

See Title 21 United States Code, §841(a)(1) and §846.   In accordance with the Constitution, the Congress has the dominion to regulate interstate, (to some degree intrastate, if it affects interstate of international), and international  Commerce;

 

See U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three:

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Note Amendment XVIII

Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

and its complement Amendment XXI

Section. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Now, where -- exactly -- is the Amendment that empowers those Feds to criminalize -- say -- an arbitrary list of substances?

Give up?

Regard$,

--MJ

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. -- Amendment X

 

This simply, is  failed and misguided logic.   A state is more than capable of enacting environmental laws that are more stringent than federal guidelines,  but a State cannot legalize something that is outright prohibited in this Nation. 

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.