The Tea Party, Rights, and Obama (Part 2), 8-29-2010

 [Continued from The Tea Party, Rights, and Obama (Part 1), 8-29-2010. sch 3/16/23.]

The Commerce Clause created an economic union amongst the States.  The government under the Articles of Confederation looked more like the current European Union and was an economic failure. That is the conventional wisdom. That is what everyone should have learned in high school American History.

Read The Federalist. Understand that amendments have changed some of its original meaning. Read numbers 11, 42, and 45. When the New Deal Supreme Court held that all commerce had some effect on interstate commerce, they were fulfilling the Founders' vision rather than creating their own.

I wish I could say there was a limit to the Commerce Clause's reach. After all, I am bound to federal prison for a criminal law based on the Commerce Clause. There was the firearms case out of San Antonio, but I think that case is too easily avoided (basically Congress screwed up the statute by not mentioning the Commerce Clause). Interstate commerce requires thinking in economic terms. Specifically, in aggregate economic terms rather than in specific instances.

Economics extends federal power into everything not otherwise limited by the Constitution. As written, I see no limit for federal power so long as Congress invokes the Commerce Clause. Which means we must rely upon the prudence of our federal legislators. Those folks generally show the same prudence as sheep. Anyone yelling loud enough and offering campaign funds gets their attention and a law, The last time I saw legislative restraint was 1985-86, during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on a music rating system, and it came from Senator Boren of Oklahoma.

[I surprise myself here, and feel my vanity perk up a little. When I wrote this, I had not yet read Gonzales v. Raich. The Bureau of Prisons provided a law library for free, and at one point I amused myself by researching the Commerce Clause. Reading Gonzales v. Raich showed I was right about only political prudence restricts Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. I suggest anyone reading this, stop now, and follow the link for Gonzales v. Raich.sch 3/16/23.]

Those now rushing to change the Commerce Clause should pause and think. Look how the Greek financial crisis got handled by the European Union. At the present time, the Commerce Clause acts against one state ruining the rest. Do you want to lose that ability? It is the Commerce Clause that makes comparisons between the European Union and the United States not as between apples and oranges, but between apples and pecans.

Does the tea party worry about costs? Then, where does it stand on criminal laws that require a minimum prison sentence? If the tea party has no position on these issues, why no position? Yet, through the Commerce Clause, the federal government can touch every level of our society.

[Continued in The Tea Party, Rights, and Obama (Part 3), 8-29-2010. sch 3/16/23.]