[quote]John S. wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S. wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S wrote: The fact is the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with free market.
Article I Section 8: Enumerated Powers of Congress
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (wait, are the words regulate and Commerce in the same sentence…craziness.)
Here you go on some long, meaningless diatribe about how this only applies to interstate commerce for which I refer you to the body of cases following 1939 as decided by the Supreme Court, also a bunch of sophomoric Constitutional amateurs compared to the brilliant minds that meet here on T-Nation.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (Holy shit, regulate the value of money…fix the standards of weights and measures…have I gone mad?)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (OMG promote the progress of science and useful arts…communists.)
And so you know, if it was your birthday and I was in a coma, I would still not be out of my league.
To regulate means to keep open. So one state could not tariff another state. The supreme court has also upheld The fairness doctrine they sold out a long time ago.(This was to correct your attempt to dispute the tariff claim). Congress also is supposed to coin money, now what you will find interesting is that by weight and measure they are talking about gold and silver.(That’s right we don’t even follow the law with our money). The closet thing we have seen to this in the past 100 years is the dollar being 40% backed by gold.
The fact that you did not read the complete sentence in promote arts and science is fucking hilarious. The government allows patents and only patents. Go ahead and give it another go, I will be back later to enlighten you.
I edited my ealier post for your edification, but where does it say “patents and only patents” imbecile? You respond with some long tangent about enumerated powers and how that encapsulates all the federal congress’s powers, which even if I concede you that point, means nothing because of the 10th Amendment. (You take time to look up 10th Amendment, stumble over 9th, get lost, stumble back). Many of the laws that posters here find most objectionable, usury laws, laws proscribing the sale of this thing or that, are state laws. This point is important, STATES CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT TO, so long as they don’t breach preemption or fundamental rights territory. Legislators don’t like the taste of Colt 45, they can ban it and it won’t even get cert by the Supremes unless Congress or the Constitution guarantees the right to drink Colt 45 or malt liquor generally. Back to school ladies.
The states can do what ever the want as long as it does not interfere with the rights granted by the Constitution. Not sure where I have ever said anything different. One thing the states can not do is place a tariff on another state, that is where we get the regulation clause. Your stance keeps jumping around. I prove you wrong so you jump to something completely unrelated, and it is beginning to bore me.
You are now trying to challenge me by saying states have most of the rights, which has been my stance since the beginning. So you wrote out a big pile of shit basically agreeing with me in order to make me argue against you? Do you really think I am going to be tricked by that.
Oh and since you fail at reading here is the part I was talking about. by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;(we call those patents).
NEXT[/quote]
I am not skipping around as much as I am trying to anticipate and head off your arguments. You have consitently made the argument that the Congress has no powers except those enumerated in Article I section 8. My counter to that is two pronged, one, even if your right, which you aren’t, so what, the States can regulate the hell out of intrastate commerce without reprisal. Why should you care if the market is squelched by the feds, state, or local governments? The bill of rights did not even initially apply to the States see Barron v. Baltimore 1833. Incorporation didn’t happen until ratification of the 14th.
My second argument to your enumerated only argument is the Bill of Rights. What enumerated power gives Congress the authority to infringe on private speech, religion, or gun ownership? Answer, none unless Congress uses the “welfare” or “commerce” clauses to create such a power. So, the framers in their wisdom carved out a few fundamental, immutable rights, and used the nineth as a cherry on top in case some wiseass said, “hey, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee _____.”
Believe it or not, I am a fan of free enterprise, big screen TV’s, Black Berries, and all the other toys the semi free-market has brought to bare. I even like Pete’s competing with Starbucks to make the best cup of $5 coffee money can buy. I just don’t thing the free market is the best delivery system for essentials where there exists an enormous disparity of power between the provider, merchant, doctor, what have you, and the consumer. Medicine is a great, current example. As informed as you might be, if you needed a bypass would you call around price shopping or would you simply look for the guy or gal who went to Johns Hopkins and hope for the best. If bypasses were on sale, would you buy two of them, just in case. All I have ever tried to say is that the market and the products therein have become increasingly more sophisticated. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, accountability to a government entity can help to prevent irreparable harm to the consumer. I believe, and I already know you don’t agree, that this is an acceptable role of a freely elected government.
