>From *United States v. Lopez*, 514 U.S. 549 (1995):
The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he 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 Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." *Gregory* v. *Ashcroft*, 501 U.S. 452 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?501+452>, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." *Ibid.* The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in *Gibbons*v. *Ogden*, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824): "Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." *Id.*, at 196. The *Gibbons* Court, however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause. "It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary. ============ But even these modern era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. In *Jones & Laughlin Steel*, the Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power "must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." 301 U. S., at 37; see also *Darby*, *supra*, at 119-120 (Congress may regulate intrastate activity that has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce); *Wickard*, *supra*, at 125 (Congress may regulate activity that "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce"). Since that time, the Court has heeded that warning and undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, *e.g.,* * Hodel* v. *Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.*, 452 U.S. 264<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?452+264>, 276-280 (1981); *Perez *v. *United States*, 402 U.S. 146<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?402+146>, 155-156 (1971); *Katzenbach* v. *McClung*, 379 U.S. 294<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?379+294>, 299-301 (1964); *Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc.* v. *United States*, 379 U.S. 241 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?379+241>, 252-253 (1964). <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html#FN2>[n.2]<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html#FN2> ============= Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. *Perez* v. *United States*, *supra*, at 150; see also *Hodel* v. *Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn.*, *supra*, at 276-277. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. See, *e.g.,* *Darby*, 312 U. S., at 114; *Heart of Atlanta Motel*, *supra*, at 256 (" `[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.' " (quoting *Caminetti* v.* United States*, 242 U.S. 470<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?242+470>, 491 (1917)). Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. See, *e.g.,* *Shreveport Rate Cases*, 234 U.S. 342<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?234+342>(1914); *Southern R. Co.* v. *United States*, 222 U.S. 20<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?222+20>(1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); *Perez*, *supra*, at 150 ("[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-usc-cite/18/32.html>), or . . . thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-usc-cite/18/659.html>)"). Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, *Jones & Laughlin Steel*, 301 U. S., at 37, *i.e.,* those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. *Wirtz*, *supra*, at 196, n. 27. ============ So, in a nutshell, despite folks like Chuckie (Schumer) Barney (Frank) Nanc, Hil, the Messiah, and a host of other socialist-elitists who are propped up there in Washington looking down upon us, the Congress has only the ability to regulate interstate commerce, period! We need to take our Nation back!!! On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > Define which rights and whose rights. The govt is actually the ref with > the striped shirt and the whistle when it comes to rights. After all giving > the rights to one takes from the others. What our current masters in > Congress and our beleaguered and out of his depths president is doing takes > away from of those of us who take our responsibilities seriously and giving > the fruits of our labor to those who do not. That is not something I am in > agreement with. And they are doing it by the parsing this Constitution to > try to bend it to say what they want it to say. Words matter and this crew > is trying to redefine all the words and we are going to be the losers for > letting them even be in the positions they hold. > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > To answer those questions: > > Is freedom a reality or a myth? > > Myth, as it stands. > > Are the rights guaranteed in the Constitution real or just a > pretense? > > It is, after all, "just a piece of paper". That would make it pure > pretense. > > Isn’t the whole purpose of government in a free society to uphold > rights rather than interfere with them? > > Not according to the government. > > Sir Thomas More was morally correct (as a Catholic that granted the > Holy Mother Church and its teachings and edicts superior position to > the English Democratic Monarchy that still exists today) but morally > wrong to ("protestants" and C of E followers) and legally wrong > according to the House of Lords, Lord Protector (read Prime Minister) > and His Monarch to whom he owed earthly fealty. > > On Mar 19, 7:50 am, "M.A. Johnson" <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants?by Andrew P. Napolitano"Some men think > the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s > command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten > it? … NO."When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his playA Man For All > Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at > his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that > the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful > authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well > as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of > nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that > Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional > limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them. > Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of > Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us > from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole > American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our > freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply > of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an > act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process. > Two of those rights are speech and contract. A law enacted by Congress > punishing speech (such as the Patriot Act provision that declares to be > felonious speaking about the receipt of certain search warrants) is no law at > all, since the law itself violates the natural right to speak freely, which > is expressly protected in the Constitution. The Framers fully understood this > as they wrote in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no laws … > abridgingthefreedom of speech." I have italicized the wordtheto make my > point. The framers accepted the natural law premise that freedoms come with > and from our humanity.Thefreedom of speech obviously preexisted the > constitutional amendment insulating it from government abridgement, and the > Framers’ use of the articlethereflects their unmistakable acceptance of that > truism. > Similarly, a law changing the terms of a private contract is no law since it > violates the natural right to make binding agreements. The Framers knew that > as well. The Constitution specifically forbids the states and, by requiring > due process and expressly forbidding taking property without just > compensation, the federal government, from "impairingtheObligation of > Contracts." This, too, is a personal natural right that pre-existed the > constitutional clauses that bar the government from interfering with it. > The Constitution sets forth just 17 discrete delegated powers on matters like > currency, interstate commerce, the post office, the judiciary, and national > defense. The Constitution also interposed two precise brakes on all federal > powers: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments together state that the powers not > enumerated in the Constitution as given to the federal government are > retained by the people and the States. > The whole purpose of the Constitution is, was, and has been to define the > government, to impose restraints on the government, and to guarantee personal > freedoms. It specifically diffused power between the States and the central > government and, within the federal government itself, it separated powers > among the three branches. > It is elementary to state that the Constitution mandates that Congress writes > the laws and decides how to spend tax dollars, the president enforces the > laws as Congress has written them, and the courts interpret the laws as they > have been written and enforced to assure their compliance with the Supreme > Law of the Land. > As elemental as this sounds, it is hardly recognizable today. After 230 > years, we have come to a point where a president declines to enforce laws he > has himself signed, directs his Treasury Secretary to make laws interfering > with private contracts, and signs executive orders that invade privacy, > restrict speech, and appropriate property. Today, we have a Congress that > delegates to the president its power to spend taxpayer dollars and money > borrowed in the taxpayers’ names, has written laws regulating the air you > breath, the water you drink, the words you speak, and relieving the persons > with whom you have contracted or to whom you have loaned money from complying > with their agreements. And our courts from time to time have raised taxes, > run prisons, re-cast the boundaries of school districts, and declined to > right obvious constitutional wrongs committed by the other branches. > The oath to uphold the Constitution that everyone in government takes, though > solemnly delivered and publicly sworn to, like an oath to tell the truth in > Court, is simply not taken seriously. Notwithstanding the plain language of > specific grants and general restraints, notwithstanding a careful compromise > between the Hamiltonians who wanted all power to be in the federal government > and the Jeffersonians who wanted all power in the States, and notwithstanding > our inalienable rights from our Creator, the federal government today simply > recognizes no limits on its power. > But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We will have chaos if > those in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping intentionally violate it > with impunity. A government that violates its supreme law becomes arbitrary, > and arbitrary rule becomes authoritarian, and authoritarian rule will trample > our freedoms. Just six weeks into its four-year term, the Obama > administration and its allies in Congress, just like the Bush administration > and its allies, have acted like they never heard of the Constitution. They > have attempted to control salaries of private banks, change the terms of > private mortgages, enter the marketplace by nationalizing banks and the > world’s largest insurer, and investing taxpayer dollars in companies whose > products consumers reject and investors eschew. This is theft of liberty and > theft of taxpayer property. > Is freedom a reality or a myth? Are the rights guaranteed in the Constitution > real or just a pretense? Isn’t the whole purpose of government in a free > society to uphold rights rather than interfere with them? If the answers to > these questions are no longer obvious, it is because we have a central > government whose only self-acknowledged limitation is whatever it can get > away with.http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano5.html > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
