The Commerce Clause and the Bill of Rights

Centinel

Centinel

Tenther
Hey all, I've got a question on the commerce clause.

According to the commerce clause, congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states.

Is it legal for the federal government to institute these regulations in such a way as to violate the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights?

For example, would it be legal for congress to create a regulation that required that anyone boarding an interstate bus first make a sacrifice in the name of Jupiter? On the one hand, they could claim that such a sacrifice was necessary to ensure the safety of the bus, the driver, the passengers, as well as innocent bystanders. On the other hand, requiring a sacrifice to Jupiter would violate the prohibition on congress against the establishment of religion.

To what extend does the bill of rights restrain congress' ability to regulate commerce among the states?
 
if we had a judicial system that was actually intent on upholding the constitution, the commerce clause would be restricted to exactly what it says and the bill of rights would mean what it says. however, because we have had a politically and racially motivated judicial system in our history, the bill of rights only means what congress and scotus want it to mean.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if we had a judicial system that was actually intent on upholding the constitution, the commerce clause would be restricted to exactly what it says and the bill of rights would mean what it says. however, because we have had a politically and racially motivated judicial system in our history, the bill of rights only means what congress and scotus want it to mean.
Click to expand...

I think we're going to have to see more and more states simply say, Thank you very much for your opinion, but we believe that you are violating the constitution and the rights of our citizens, and we are going interpose in order to protect them.

The ultimate defenders of the constitution are not going to be 9 black robed man, but the people of the several states.
 
Centinel said:
I think we're going to have to see more and more states simply say, Thank you very much for your opinion, but we believe that you are violating the constitution and the rights of our citizens, and we are going interpose in order to protect them.

The ultimate defenders of the constitution are not going to be 9 black robed man, but the people of the several states.
Click to expand...

a few states have already tried this, only to be shut down by the federal courts. montana, new hampshire....

i would dearly love to see a fed agent violate the law in new hampshire though.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
a few states have already tried this, only to be shut down by the federal courts. montana, new hampshire....

i would dearly love to see a fed agent violate the law in new hampshire though.
Click to expand...

I just listened to an interview with Sheriff Mack. We need many more sheriffs like him in these united states.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if we had a judicial system that was actually intent on upholding the constitution, the commerce clause would be restricted to exactly what it says and the bill of rights would mean what it says. however, because we have had a politically and racially motivated judicial system in our history, the bill of rights only means what congress and scotus want it to mean.
Click to expand...

so what do you think the commerce clause says? what do you think the bill of rights says?
 
Yurt said:
so what do you think the commerce clause says? what do you think the bill of rights says?
Click to expand...

the commerce clause was written to give congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states to prevent one state from charging a higher import tax for one state over another. that gave the feds power to control and regulate commerce between the states to keep things moving, fair, and equal. Not to deny possession of something from the people.

The bill of rights were written to notify the feds that these rights were untouchable, no matter what set of laws or rules they wanted to implement.
 
Centinel said:
I think we're going to have to see more and more states simply say, Thank you very much for your opinion, but we believe that you are violating the constitution and the rights of our citizens, and we are going interpose in order to protect them.

The ultimate defenders of the constitution are not going to be 9 black robed man, but the people of the several states.
Click to expand...

And so, the fall of the United States as a world power. Many other countries have suffered similar fates in the past, as mad ideologues tear apart their people along factional lines and the country is divided into pieces. Hopefully, when the Chinese come in and make us vassals, they won't be harsh to us.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the commerce clause was written to give congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states to prevent one state from charging a higher import tax for one state over another. that gave the feds power to control and regulate commerce between the states to keep things moving, fair, and equal. Not to deny possession of something from the people.

The bill of rights were written to notify the feds that these rights were untouchable, no matter what set of laws or rules they wanted to implement.
Click to expand...

Federal power is already too weak. It shouldn't be weakened further. I won't let you destroy my country!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the commerce clause was written to give congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states to prevent one state from charging a higher import tax for one state over another. that gave the feds power to control and regulate commerce between the states to keep things moving, fair, and equal. Not to deny possession of something from the people.
Click to expand...

Well put. Nice explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top