• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Commerce clause: The ultimate evil?

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,228
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
Looking through some of proposed laws today, and took note that much of the anti-gun legislation cites it’s authority to do so through the commerce clause “Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution”.

~ So it would seem to me that this commerce clause has been greatly abused, over used, and should be the subject of intense scrutiny by the people of the United States, constitutional scholars, privatized lawyers, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States. How is it that we can to allow this clause to be the end all / say all of the law of the land? How is it that this clause can be used to wield such broad ranged and far reaching legislation at the whims of the federal government? It would seem to me to be a king pin to the omnipotent power structure that we have allowed the US Government to build under our noses.

What could be done to limit the power of this clause, and possibly subdue the limitless reach it has? Correct me if I am wrong, but NFA34 and GCA68 also derive their power from this clause as well. In fact, it seems almost all major federal firearms laws do so. If the Commerce clause was greatly limited, those could be found to be un-constitutional almost instantly.

I think that we, as gun owners, and people of liberty, need to look at a more offensive play book. Instead of constantly defending ourselves from the power hoarders, we need to start deconstructing some of the primary tools they use to hoard the power. Limiting the power of the commerce clause might be a good way to approach this. .. Un do the foundation that is being used by the anti-gun, ant-liberty crowd, and then begin repealing major gun laws that should be viewed as un-constitutional.

Thoughts?

Bat :dude:


 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,228
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
A constitutional amendment.


I think this is a good avenue. An amendment preventing the commerce clause from bearing itself against, or infringing upon anything that is clearly or previously controlled or defined in the bill of rights. Effectively leverage the power of “Shall not be infringed” as written in the Second Amendment against the power of the commerce clause to make the “right to keep and bear arms” exempt and with immunity from regulation by or from the commerce clause.
 
Last edited:

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Legislative Contact

I think this is a good avenue. An amendment preventing the commerce clause from bearing itself against, or infringing upon anything that is clearly or previously controlled or defined in the bill of rights. Effectively leverage the power of “Shall not be infringed” as written in the Second Amendment against the power of the commerce clause to make the “right to keep and bear arms” exempt and with immunity from regulation by or from the commerce clause.

Perhaps Matt Shea could provide some insight. I have exchanged emails with him on this topic but have not broached the idea of attempting an amendment.

Whitney
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
A constitutional amendment.

It should not be needed.

Congress is acting outside is limited powers. You must go back to the intent of the clause to understand it's legal effect.

How would another amendment help?

How would you word it?

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

"To regulate," did that not mean to make regular?
"A well regulated,..."



Here, http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/abuse.html
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Federalists promote use of the commerce clause to gather power. Others like it because it promotes uniformity across the states. You hear those claims everyday, from folks on both side of gun issues. One side calls for NY-style bans everywhere, the other calls for Arizona-style constitutional carry nationwide. By removing the differences and effectively creating one state, choices are removed and governing becomes entirely a national affair.

The abuse of the clause doesn't mean we need to change the words, we just need to elect people who are willing to scale back federal power. An example of good compromise on an issue is the FOPA provisions to allow interstate transport of guns giving uniform, maximum requirements. States are free to require less, but not authorized to require more. This prevents accidental violations and allows transport, even across states which otherwise prohibit such arms.
 

normuser

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
22
Location
texas
The abuse of the clause doesn't mean we need to change the words, we just need to elect people who are willing to scale back federal power. An example of good compromise on an issue is the FOPA provisions to allow interstate transport of guns giving uniform, maximum requirements. States are free to require less, but not authorized to require more. This prevents accidental violations and allows transport, even across states which otherwise prohibit such arms.
first bit bolded(sp?) by me.

I must disagree with this.
The rampant abuse of any power by the government necessitates the removal of said power.
It is my opinion that the commerce clause should be stricken from the constitution.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
first bit bolded(sp?) by me.

I must disagree with this.
The rampant abuse of any power by the government necessitates the removal of said power.
It is my opinion that the commerce clause should be stricken from the constitution.

So, because the government missuses firearms, firearms should be banned too?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,925
Location
North Carolina
If we could cut the federal money fabrication, the commerce clause would be used more appropriately. It takes phantom money to pay for all these unconstitutional laws, take that away and we would again have limited government.
 

normuser

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
22
Location
texas
So, because the government missuses firearms, firearms should be banned too?

No, that is a false analogy.
I stated in my prior post:
"The rampant abuse of any power by the government necessitates the removal of said power.
It is my opinion that the commerce clause should be stricken from the constitution."​

The subject is a power granted to the federal government (the commerce clause). The premise is that if the power is abused, then the power should be removed (stricken).

Your statement:
"So, because the government missuses firearms, firearms should be banned too?"​

The subject is an object (firearms). The premise is that if the object is misused by the government, then the object should be removed from the people (banned).
That is not the same as what I stated.

Also, By masking your discourse as a question on weather firearms should be banned as-well the implication is that I have called for a ban on something, which is not true.

Simply put, Your twisting of words is not welcome.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Looking through some of proposed laws today, and took note that much of the anti-gun legislation cites it’s authority to do so through the commerce clause “Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution”.

~ So it would seem to me that this commerce clause has been greatly abused, over used, and should be the subject of intense scrutiny by the people of the United States, constitutional scholars, privatized lawyers, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States. How is it that we can to allow this clause to be the end all / say all of the law of the land? How is it that this clause can be used to wield such broad ranged and far reaching legislation at the whims of the federal government? It would seem to me to be a king pin to the omnipotent power structure that we have allowed the US Government to build under our noses.

What could be done to limit the power of this clause, and possibly subdue the limitless reach it has? Correct me if I am wrong, but NFA34 and GCA68 also derive their power from this clause as well. In fact, it seems almost all major federal firearms laws do so. If the Commerce clause was greatly limited, those could be found to be un-constitutional almost instantly.

I think that we, as gun owners, and people of liberty, need to look at a more offensive play book. Instead of constantly defending ourselves from the power hoarders, we need to start deconstructing some of the primary tools they use to hoard the power. Limiting the power of the commerce clause might be a good way to approach this. .. Un do the foundation that is being used by the anti-gun, ant-liberty crowd, and then begin repealing major gun laws that should be viewed as un-constitutional.

Thoughts?

Bat :dude:



You could probably get a lot more fast support to restrict the commerce clause because commerce clause abuse in all areas combined touches so many people. Then once that is restricted, the gun restrictions will have their foundations removed by default.

The point would be to advocate as Americans for limiting the commerce clause, as compared to advocating as gun owners.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
No, that is a false analogy.
I stated in my prior post:
"The rampant abuse of any power by the government necessitates the removal of said power.
It is my opinion that the commerce clause should be stricken from the constitution."​

The subject is a power granted to the federal government (the commerce clause). The premise is that if the power is abused, then the power should be removed (stricken).

Your statement:
"So, because the government missuses firearms, firearms should be banned too?"​

The subject is an object (firearms). The premise is that if the object is misused by the government, then the object should be removed from the people (banned).
That is not the same as what I stated.

Also, By masking your discourse as a question on weather firearms should be banned as-well the implication is that I have called for a ban on something, which is not true.

Simply put, Your twisting of words is not welcome.

The courts have allowed the misapplication of power. The corporations have funded those who wish to misapply the power.

The power was to maintain untaxed trade between the states. So if you remove that power, Washington can lay a tax on non-Washington apples, Arizona could tax non AZ oranges or only oranges from California and congress could do nothing about it.

Without the power there might be a transport tax for everything passing through Nebraska, or any other state.

With out the clause a truck driver from one state might only be able to work 40 hours per week and another might be able to work 60 hours per week while another might not have any limit.

Please understand the consequences of the actions of which you advocate before you put them into motion I understand your frustration I really do.

But it is the courts have have allowed the misapplication of the power and that is what should be attacked.

The behavior that you suggest is no better than those who oppose the private ownership of firearms.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
So, because the government missuses firearms, firearms should be banned too?

"Firearms" aren't a section of the defining document of the Federal government.

If we could cut the federal money fabrication, the commerce clause would be used more appropriately. It takes phantom money to pay for all these unconstitutional laws, take that away and we would again have limited government.

There's something to be said for this.

You could probably get a lot more fast support to restrict the commerce clause because commerce clause abuse in all areas combined touches so many people. Then once that is restricted, the gun restrictions will have their foundations removed by default.

The point would be to advocate as Americans for limiting the commerce clause, as compared to advocating as gun owners.

I agree.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
...
But it is the courts have have allowed the misapplication of the power and that is what should be attacked.
....

Actually, it was/is the executive branch that misapplied the clause. The courts did allow it, but our best course of action is elections, which primarily address executives And those judges they appoint (so much for separation of powers).
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
There is no way the federal government will do anything to limit the commerce clause because its what is used to justify about 95% of what the federal government does.

But yes, it is a major problem and I have no idea how to fix it except to vote in libertarian candidates who will voluntarily cut programs and spending.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
The courts still allowed it. .... wow.

Yes, but the courts didn't DO it. The executive hatched and executed plans, and the Congress either legislated or failed to legislate appropriately. In this case, it takes three to tango. Any one branch could have killed the overreach.
 
Top