Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="freeranger" data-source="post: 1991670" data-attributes="member: 25733"><p>Much too simple an answer. Again, most folks seem to forget that Article 1, Section 8 is a list of finite, limited powers granted to the federal government by the states to address issues that affected the confederation as whole. The very fact that the Commerce Clause falls within this set of limited powers illustrates that the federal government does not have authority over many aspects of our daily activities. Commerce at the time of the Constitution's drafting pertained to trade and exchange (simple explanation, historically it goes back to precolonial days were the regulation of commerce was the <em>law merchant</em>, which Parliament had the ability to regulate if it was for the general welfare of the Colonies as well as among the political units of the British Empire) between the colonies. The Founders sought to stimulate America's economy, as as such the federal government could prohibit or discourage importation/exportation of selected commodities/products. Certain issues that were obstacles of commerce between the states also fell under these enumerated limits. And keep in mind, that the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 that Congress were permitted "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."; meaning those specific, enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. The Commerce Clause never granted carte blanche power to regulate every facet of activity within the states. Arguing that it does would be in opposition to the reasonable belief that the states would ever cede powers to the federal government areas that they could address and take care of themselves. Again, the ratifying debates of the separate states shows how each understood the different clauses presented to them within the text of the Constitution. The Federalist repeatedly assured the states that powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 were limited and finite. To believe that the states would cede unlimited power to the federal government would be a contradiction of Article 1, Section 8 as they understood it, a limit on federal power. I've eluded to one thing repeatedly, the federal government has no vested interest in policing itself and limiting itself to adhere to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Since the New Deal era, it has worked tirelessly to scheme of ways to bypass those enumerated powers and reduce the power of the states and the people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freeranger, post: 1991670, member: 25733"] Much too simple an answer. Again, most folks seem to forget that Article 1, Section 8 is a list of finite, limited powers granted to the federal government by the states to address issues that affected the confederation as whole. The very fact that the Commerce Clause falls within this set of limited powers illustrates that the federal government does not have authority over many aspects of our daily activities. Commerce at the time of the Constitution's drafting pertained to trade and exchange (simple explanation, historically it goes back to precolonial days were the regulation of commerce was the [I]law merchant[/I], which Parliament had the ability to regulate if it was for the general welfare of the Colonies as well as among the political units of the British Empire) between the colonies. The Founders sought to stimulate America's economy, as as such the federal government could prohibit or discourage importation/exportation of selected commodities/products. Certain issues that were obstacles of commerce between the states also fell under these enumerated limits. And keep in mind, that the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 that Congress were permitted "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."; meaning those specific, enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. The Commerce Clause never granted carte blanche power to regulate every facet of activity within the states. Arguing that it does would be in opposition to the reasonable belief that the states would ever cede powers to the federal government areas that they could address and take care of themselves. Again, the ratifying debates of the separate states shows how each understood the different clauses presented to them within the text of the Constitution. The Federalist repeatedly assured the states that powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 were limited and finite. To believe that the states would cede unlimited power to the federal government would be a contradiction of Article 1, Section 8 as they understood it, a limit on federal power. I've eluded to one thing repeatedly, the federal government has no vested interest in policing itself and limiting itself to adhere to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Since the New Deal era, it has worked tirelessly to scheme of ways to bypass those enumerated powers and reduce the power of the states and the people. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom