Usually it is the absurdity that is Wickard v. Filburn
THAT is one of the problems ... what passes for
legal training is studying 'pass-the-buck' precedents.
More eloquently (perhaps):
One of the chief obstacles to the recovery of the
actual Constitution from the judges and their
sycophants is the type of "education" to which
fledgling lawyers have been subjected in law
school. In general, they have read a heap of
judicial opinions, most of them based on nothing
more than the judges’ personal political
preferences. They are taught to respect, even
revere, these judicial products as if they were
the Constitution itself -- although in fact they
are in many ways the Constitution’s perfect opposite.
Alongside the case method of instruction as an
obstacle to any attempt to reclaim authentically
constitutional government in the United States is
the tendency to worship a few early American
politicians. In the hands of the West Coast
Straussians, this Founders worship distorts the
truth about the establishment of the current
federal government so very greatly.
Regard$,
--MJ
"The point is that republican government is
premised on the idea of consent. The people
consented to the interpretation of the
Constitution that was presented to them in the
ratifying conventions. If in the interim no
formal change in the Constitution has been
forthcoming from the people, then the
understanding that was presented at the ratifying
conventions must be presumed to stand. Otherwise,
professors at Georgetown University could impose
their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods
At 09:50 PM 7/15/2013, you wrote:
I can't remember the case, but it was while I
was in law school, the most ridiculous case that
I can recall regarding Congress' grab of, and
abuse of the Commerce Clause; as well as the
asinine Court's blessing of such a power
grab. It regarded a manufacturer of
clothing, I think they were jeans, but I don't
remember now. Because the jeans utilized a
zipper that was made in a different State, the
Supreme's in their infinite wisdom ruled that
the Court in question had jurisdiction because
the manufacturer had imported less than a
hundred zippers from one state to another.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:58 PM, MJ
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
AIS8C3
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Samuel Johnson 1750 dictionary
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.
.
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.
The word "commerce" was almost never used in
common parlance in the colonies or newly
independent states. A search of newspapers,
speeches, and letters of that time and place
finds few instances of it. The word is
originally French, and we have this from
Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of Nations (1758), Book I § 92:
... commerce consists in mutually buying and
selling all sorts of commodities.
Vattel was well-known and often cited by the Founders.
Note the PARTIES involved -- States, foreign Nations and Indian Tribes.
What has this to do with 'any "thing" or entity
that can or will affect interstate commerce'.
It simply doesn't.
It is ABSURD.
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 02:50 PM 7/15/2013, you wrote:
Michael, in a sense, I agree with you. As an
example, how does the Federal Government have
jurisdiction over the criminalization of
drugs, which is codified in Title 21 of the
United States Code, and not at all in the U.S.
Criminal Code; Title 18. The same goes for
pollution standards, in Title 33.
In another sense, I understand the logic,
because as you well know, the Congress'
jurisdicition extends over any "thing" or
entity that can or will affect interstate commerce.
Finally, whether we agree, or disagree, whether
we like it or we don't like it, that is the law of the land.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:44 PM, MJ
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
But the US Constitution lists ... piracy,
counterfeiting, treason, violation of laws of
nations ... and no other crimes whatsoever ...
Besides, the dubiously ratified 14th from which
all these 'civil rights' are derived ... applies to STATES.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What Law did Zimmerman 'put into effect'?
Regard$,
--MJ
"In our country the lie has become not just a
moral category but a pillar of the State" --
the great Soviet dissident and literary figure,
Alexander Solzhenitsyn in December 1974.
At 02:33 PM 7/15/2013, you wrote:
It has been long ago decided that there is
nothing afoul of the double jeopardy clause of
the 5th Amendment, if in fact the State or
other municipality chooses to prosecute an
individual, and the Federal government also
chooses to prosecute. The theory of "Dual Sovereignty"
"The Constitutional Right not to be placed in
double jeopardy, being a vital safeguard in
American society, should not be given a
narrow, grudging application". See Green v.
United States, 355 U.S. 184; 2 L.Ed.2d
199, (1961); (c.f.; See Also Bartkus v.
Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 131-133; 3 L.Ed.2d 684
(1959); a defendant prosecuted by two
sovereign governments for the same conduct may
on occasion be able to invoke double jeopardy protection.)
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, MJ
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Holder was all full of vim and vigor, talking
about how the U.S.D.O.J. was on the job,
looking at and reviewing what could be done
in the legal arena to continue the prosecution of Zimmerman.
Continue? Wasn't he declared 'not guilty' by a jury of strangers?
What is to continue -- specifically?
Regard$,
--MJ
"Show me that age and country where the rights
and liberties of the people were placed on the
sole chance of their rulers being good men,
without a consequent loss of liberty?" --
Patrick Henry, Speech on the Federal
Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788).
--
--
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.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
