Common Sense Too
........... Part1 ............
Thank You TP
Common Sense Too
........... Part2 ............
Bill of Rights
Common Sense Too
........... Part3 ............
Common Sense Too
........... Part4 ............
Common Sense Too: Part 2
A common sense reading of the commerce clause listed in the previous chapter would lead one to believe that there is no authorization in the constitution for Social Security or Welfare or Education; but as the tyrants require their power, they have justified these programs and many more by applying a creative interpretation of the commerce clause. Remember Thomas Jefferson’s warning above in his letter to President Washington:
If such latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one; for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience.
Here is a sample of tortured convenience that Jefferson warned of. Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states under the second clause of Article 1 Section 8. Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to execute their powers under the eighteenth clause of Article 1 Section 8. Social Security and Welfare and Education; all effect the commerce among states as a person can work in one state and retire in another; a person on welfare could travel to another state looking for a job; a person could get his education in his home state and move to another state to work. Therefore it is a power of the congress to make all laws regulating these activities.
An understanding of our history and the wording of the commerce clause would lead someone of reasonable mind to reject this logic. The purpose of the commerce clause is to protect the states from each other. For example, pretend you are a business in North Carolina that produced a crop that you wished to transport and sell to businesses in Pennsylvania. Virginia might decide to levy a tax on your product as you transport your crop through their state. The commerce clause would allow congress to make laws to prevent this interference in interstate commerce.
If Pennsylvania farmers produced the same crop but at a more expensive price than North Carolina, Pennsylvania might put a tariff on the North Carolina crop to prevent the undermining of the price of their crop. The commerce clause would allow congress to make laws preventing Pennsylvania from adding a tariff to the North Carolina crop. Such laws would result in regulating commerce for the protection of all states.
How are providing Social Security benefits protecting the states from each other in the matter of interstate commerce? If there were no Social Security benefits, would the interference of commerce between the states be increased? How would one state use the lack of Social Security benefits as an advantage over another state? You can see how preventing one state from applying a tariff to another state’s goods would cause strife in the country and should be regulated by congress. But only through the ingenuity of a tyrant’s tortured logic can social security benefits be deemed a necessary and proper application of the commerce clause. The same could be said for welfare and education and a whole host of other powers that congress has taken upon themselves for their own benefit.
Notice the wording of the commerce clause: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; This clause allows congressional commerce powers with foreign Nations and Indian Tribes but not with the States. The word “with” is removed in reference to the States and substituted with “among the several”. Obviously the federal government’s power to regulate commerce inside the boundaries of a state is not allowed under this clause as this right belongs to the states and to the people. But, as this slight of hand is required to facilitate the power of those who would oppress us, you can expect all commerce to be regulated by congress as suits their needs. In concert, the Supreme Court will support this tyranny as their superior position in society is also at stake.
The Supreme Court case of Gibbon vs. Ogden in 1824 established a broad view of the congress’s powers relating to the commerce clause. This case involved a dispute over steamboat travel between New York and New Jersey. Aaron Ogden held an exclusive license to operate steam boats in New York state waters. Thomas Gibbon held a federal coasting license and operated a steam boat line from New Jersey to New York. Ogden got the State of New York to restrict Gibbon’s steam line as Ogden held exclusive license to such in New York. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the commerce clause allowed Congress to have powers over such matters and since the constitution is supreme law any congressional law shall over ride state law when a conflict occurs.
Landmark Cases Ogden vs Gibbons
Supreme Court Ruling Ogden vs Gibbons
A reasonable person can read the commerce clause and allow that this is a fair reading of the constitution as this issue affected commerce among the states. However from the mid 1930 and on the Supreme Court took an even more liberal interpretation of the commerce clause using Gibbons vs. Ogden as a precedent.
Wikipedia Article on United States vs Darby
An example of how our government and the constitution can be manipulated to meet the designs of those in power is contained in the Supreme Court case of United States vs. Darby (1941). This case involved the federal government establishing working rules effecting manufacturing in the United States. Congress set a minimum wage and weekly hours worked limit for employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Darby Lumber Company of Georgia challenges these requirements because Georgia had no such standards and their lumber manufacturing was completely contained in the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Congress because the lumber in question could be shipped and used in other states and thus involved interstate commerce. The following is excerpts from that Supreme Court Ruling:
The power of Congress over interstate commerce 'is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed by the constitution.' Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, 9 Wheat. 196. That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power. Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., supra. Congress, following its own conception of public policy concerning the restrictions which may appropriately be imposed on interstate commerce, is free to exclude from the commerce articles whose use in the states for which they are destined it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals or welfare, even though the state has not sought to regulate their use. Reid v. Colorado, supra; Lottery Case, supra; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, supra; Hoke v. United States, supra.
Such regulation is not a forbidden invasion of state power merely because either its motive or its consequence is to restrict the use of articles of commerce within the states of destination and is not prohibited unless by other Constitutional provisions. It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of the states.
Supreme Court Ruling United States vs Darby
As you can read in the above ruling, there are no limitations over the Congress’s power concerning commerce as all commerce eventually has an effect on interstate commerce. This is how we find ourselves in this current state of tyranny today that allows the federal government into all aspects of our lives including Social Security and Welfare and Education to name but a few.
A minimum wage law does nothing to assure the free exercise of commerce between states but does much to increase the federal government’s power over what should be reserved to the states and to the people. This tortured interpretation of the commerce clause is exactly the tyranny that Thomas Jefferson feared when he objected to the National Bank back in 1791.
Our rule of law form of government was formed to protect each person from the tyranny of the rule of man, but as you can see, by liberal interpretation of the constitution, the rule of man has taken hold. These Supreme Court justices are supposedly the brightest most knowledgeable jurists in the nation. They have to know of the original design of this nation. They have to know that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. Yet they would look you in the eye and point to precedent and they would tell you that congress does have these unlimited powers despite what your common sense might tell you.
Even the most conservative Supreme Court justice today would support the concept of social security retirement under the federal government even though no such concept is expressed in the constitution. This is to illustrate the intoxicating power of their position. THERE ARE NO WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO PLAN AND CONTROL YOUR RETIREMENT. THERE ARE NO WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GUIDE YOU IN THE EDUCATION OF YOUR CHILDREN.
Yet even the most conservative supreme court justice would rule that such power exists because the current design of government would be thrown into turmoil if he were to rule otherwise; and as he is a part of this system of government, and as his position in society would suffer otherwise, and as his decision is considered supreme, he will find a way to misinterpret the constitution to fit the design of tyrants and the rule of man.
In the original design of our constitution the judicial branch of the government was thought to be the weakest branch of the government. As the founding fathers saw little to fear from this branch of government, they provided inadequate guidance to the powers of the judiciary in the constitution and they provided inadequate checks and balances on the judiciary. When any group of men are given supreme power with inadequate checks on the abuse of that power then even the best of men will fall prey to man’s vices.
The Supreme Court justices are of the same two party systems and of the same federal government as the executive branch and the legislative branch in our capitol and as such their reputations and superior standing are so linked. And as they are so linked, these justices will by nature gravitate toward the most advantageous ruling to support their brethren. To expect otherwise would be against nature. Their position of power is also enabled by appointment of the executive and approval of the legislature, and as such there is a predisposition to share the values and culture of these two institutions whether they are good or whether they are tyrannical.