Say Anything Blog

The so-called Interstate Commerce clause in the US Constitution is the basis for virtually all Federal regulations controlling commerce.  The constitution clearly states that the Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce without defining what type of control it has.  However the motive for inserting the clause in the constitution was to prohibit states from exacting a tribute (tariff) on goods entering or leaving the state a practice that was common before the constitution was enacted.  That was it.  The Commerce Clause was intended to free the movement of products from state to state, not to regulate or limit their movement in anyway.

But there is an abundance of evidence found in the acts of the Constitutional Convention, and in the construction of the Constitution by the early Presidents, to show that it was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution, under the power to regulate interstate commerce, to clothe Congress with the power to prohibit commerce, or to own and operate canals and post roads. On September 14, 1787, a motion was made by Franklin in the Constitutional Convention that Congress be given power ” to provide for cutting canals,” and
the motion was defeated. Edmund Randolph, who presented to the Constitutional Convention the Virginia plan, while Attorney-General under the administration of Washington, gave his opinion to Washington, February 12, 1791, on the extent of the power in Congress to regulate commerce, saying that its extent was ” little more than to establish the forms of commercial intercourse between the states, and to keep the prohibitions which the Constitution imposed upon that intercourse undiminished in their operation; that is, to prevent taxes on imports or exports, preference to one port over another by any regulation of commerce or revenue, and duties upon the entering or clearing of the vessels of one state in the ports of another.” It is evident that the United States cannot under the Constitution open any road or canal without the consent of the state through which said road or canal must pass.”

The unfortunate use of the word ‘regulate’ in the Interstate Commerce clause ‘To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and amoung the several states..’ without specifically defining the regulatory limitations has lead to the broadest possible interpretation by the Federal legislation and the judiciary in the most liberal sense and as is sharply evident, the Federal government with the consent of the judicial branch has dramatically overreached the intended limitations of the Commerce clause.

In short, the national government, with few delegated powers, is going back to the old world views of the functions of government, and, through the interstate commerce act, is
establishing a Federal police power which follows the footsteps of every citizen by licenses
and restraining laws into every avenue of life, and practically supplants the police powers
reserved to the states.

If the United States Supreme Court sustains all these powers, the national government will become omnipotent. An ambitious President, through his right to execute the laws, can perpetuate his power in spite of the people. But the President seeks powers still greater than these. He asks Congress to confer upon the Interstate Commerce Commission the right to discriminate between good and bad trusts; to allow certain railways to form combinations; and to punish those which it desires, and to exempt those which it thinks it wise to refrain from punishing.

The dreary predictions in the above quotes written in 1908 have come to fruition today as we
have descended to the hell of total government control.  The vast number of Federal agencies
that control almost every aspect of our lives all have their basis in the liberal interpretation of the Commerce clause.  The systems of checks and balances intended by the countries founders has abysmally failed as the Supreme court who should have put a stop to most of this government expansiveness has become little more than an approval stamp on whatever regulation powers the Congress and president wishes to acquire.

Afterword: Virtually all government regulations have been enacted ‘for the good of the people’ but it boggles my mind how depriving the ‘people’ of the freedom of choice is a good thing.  Our country today has severely departed from the ideals envisioned by its founders.  After 4 years of Obama’s rule we shall have completed the transition of free nation to a country under absolute rule which has names like ‘nanny state’ and ‘police state’.

Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks – drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

References:
Federal usurpation By Franklin Pierce
Mark Steyn