|
|
Regulating Commerce – Raich v. Ashcroft
By John William Kurowski , American
Constitutional Research Service
To those who support our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of
Government“, Raich v. Ashcroft is not about “medical Marijuana” but rather, the
case presents a chance to correct a despotic decision made by the Supreme Court
of the United States in 1942 concerning Congress’ power to regulate commerce in
which the Court gave a new meaning to the word “commerce” in order to allow part
of FDR’s NEW DEAL socialism [price controls] to pass as being constitutional,
when it was not.
The following article is worth reading, and can be found at findlaw.com.
The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on a Possible California "Medical
Marijuana" Exception to the Feder Controlled Substance Act
The author of the above article makes reference to a precedent setting case,
Wickard v. Filburn, with regard to Congress’ power to regulate commerce, a power
which today is used by Congress to interfere with almost ever aspect of our
lives and which is the subject of my writing.
I am hoping the following will help to expose the despotic nature of the Supreme
Court’s decision in 1942, and perhaps help to undue what it did___ subjugate the
legislative intent for which Congress was given power “To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes“
The reasoning given by the Court in
Wickard v. Filburn, allowing regulation to institute price controls, is
totally absurd on its face and contrary to both the spirit and legislative
intent for which Congress was granted the power in question.
The reasoning in Wickard, authorizing Congress to fine a farmer for growing
wheat on his property was that, if many farmers planted, grew, and used wheat
for their own families’ consumption within the various states, it would have an
“effect” on commerce “among” the states, and therefore, the writers of our
federal Constitution, and the various states when ratifying the Constitution,
intended to have the Congress of the United States regulate the growth of wheat
within the various state borders and allow federal legislation to punish a
farmer with a financial penalty for growing wheat on his property without
Congress’ approval!
Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? If the logic of the Court was not so obviously
intended to subjugate and undermine the limited power our founding fathers
intended by the grant of power to regulate commerce, it would be laughable. But
it is not laughable because the Court, in rendering its decision, was
intentionally acting to subvert the intentions of our founding fathers and those
who ratified the constitution in order to assist in the imposition of FDR’s NEW
DEAL…a deal in which the servant becomes the master over those who created a
servant___ a deal in which folks in government [agents of the strong and
powerful] are set free to ignore the four corners of the constitution and impose
their will upon the people of the United States without their consent.
The most fundamental principle of constitutional law as stated by Jefferson is:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."--Jeffeson in a letter to William Johnson, June 12,
1823
So, the immediate question the Court was to answer in the Wickard case was, what
was the intent of the framers and ratifiers in granting the power to Congress.
What was it that the people, meaning you [the reader] wanted to accomplish when
delegating the power in question to Congress?
Search the case in question [Wickard], follow the cases cited, and you will find
insufficient documentation from the historical record of the framing and
ratification process of our Constitution to support what the Court concluded. As
a matter of fact, the historical record documents the Court did in fact engage
in an outright subjugation of our constitutional system and did so by an
intentional misrepresentation of the meaning of the word “commerce” as used in
our constitution.
The word commerce, as used in the constitution, and as documented in the
historical records during the framing and ratification process, is found to mean
trade. The word commerce, as the founding fathers used the word during the
framing and ratification process, did not mean the manufacturing process of
goods, the cultivation of agricultural products, the production process by which
articles of consumption are created, or, similar economic enterprise carried on
within the various state borders.
In fact, the term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers, appears to be
almost synonymous with trade or the exchange of goods, and is interchangeable in
almost every context in which the founding fathers used the word “commerce”
during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution.
From a research of the historical record, it appears to be irrefutable that the
word commerce was in fact intentionally meant by our founding fathers, and used
by them in their speeches and debates, to refer to trade___ the transportation
and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of
point A and point B.
You can find this truth yourself by doing a word search [what a Godsend are
these modern day contrivances called computers] for “commerce” in the
Federalists and
Anti Federalist Papers,
Madison’s Notes,
Elliot’s Debates, etc., and, the truth suddenly jumps from the pages of
these historical records and instructs us that the Supreme Court, to assist in a
tyrannical imposition of FDR’s New Deal, gave a new meaning, an unintended
meaning, to the word “commerce” as used in the Constitution, and did so to allow
Congress to seize regulatory control over various commercial activities within
the various state borders: agricultural, manufacturing and almost every other
commercial activity one can imagine…a regulatory power having nothing to do with
the actual trading and transportation of goods from point A to point B after
products of trade are produced within a state’s borders, and which the founding
fathers wanted to insure would not be interfered with by the imposition of
taxation as they moved from state to state, or, interfered with while being
shipped. And thus, the power to regulate commerce among [not within] was granted
with this specific intent in mind!
In addition, and to further restrict the power of regulating commerce, the
founding fathers also commanded that:
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to
the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or
from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
[Art. 1, Sec. 9]
As pointed out in
Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intent of the power to regulate
commerce, Madison states the following:
A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which
import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied
on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State
and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles
of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties
which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We
may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by
future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs,
that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in
serious interruptions of the public tranquility.
In any event, as I sit here and type, I am astonished to hear that Senator John
McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, appears to be threatening to
use Congress’ delegated power to regulate commerce to compel professional
baseball players to give urine samples for drug testing if baseball's
commissioner and union chief do not make their own rules concerning the use of
steroids among ballplayers.
"Your failure to commit to addressing this issue straight on and immediately
will motivate this committee to search for legislative remedies," McCain,
told players' union chief Donald Fehr.
How is it possible that our elected public servants, having taken an oath to
uphold our Constitution, are so eager to misapply the power to regulate commerce
among the states, which is now threaten to be misapplied to regulate drug use
among baseball players? ANSWER: the servant has become the master over those who
have created a servant!
NOTE:
And just what is the lawful extent of Congress’ powers with regard to the
people’s activities within the various states? James Madison in
Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us that:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external
objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers
reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of
the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and
the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the
article which are public domain materials.]
|
