Try and get it back. On Mar 19, 1:03 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
