Re: Interstate commerce...

Demon Buddha wrote:
OK, stupid question time, and believe me I am more than a bit embarrassed that I don't know this: what was the purpose of the commerce clause? Why should Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce? What was the purpose of this?

Told you I was embarrassed.

No need to be embarrassed. The Commerce Clause is the single-most abused and misunderstood aspect of the Constitution, bar none.

First, "interstate commerce" is a misnomer in this application, the original text reads: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Specifically: Commerce ... among the several States. "States" refers to state /governments/, not boundaries. The current misinterpretation of 'interstate commerce' is far too broad in its interpretation and application; it was NOT part of the original intent.

So, what was the original intent? The original need was to guarantee equal access to the channels of commerce. In that day, THE channel was shipping and deep-water ports. At the time, such ports were few and far between, and only available in coastal states. Land-locked states were completely dependent on access to those ports, and coastal states knew that and took advantage of that, often to the detriment of the dependent states.

The intent of the clause, therefore, was to eliminate local (state government) from interfering with the channels of trade, thereby promoting national growth, regardless of direct access to ports.

Arguably the Commerce Clause, as originally intended, no longer applies as deep water port access is only one of many channels now available. In fact, I advocate that the Commerce Clause be repealed outright, as it has done more damage to our nation than any person or thing.

If you are interested in finding out more, there is an essay that discusses the history of the Commerce Clause:

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/PandasThumb.pdf

I find the analysis complete and comprehensive, however the conclusions are wrong.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interstate commerce...
    ... Why should Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce? ... First, "interstate commerce" is a misnomer in this application, the original text reads: "The Congress shall have Power ... ... At the time, such ports were few and far between, and only available in coastal states. ... Arguably the Commerce Clause, as originally intended, no longer applies as deep water port access is only one of many channels now available. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Interstate commerce...
    ... Why should Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce? ... First, "interstate commerce" is a misnomer in this application, the original text reads: "The Congress shall have Power ... ... At the time, such ports were few and far between, and only available in coastal states. ... Arguably the Commerce Clause, as originally intended, no longer applies as deep water port access is only one of many channels now available. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Abusing the U.S. Constitution for fun and profit
    ... Congress justifies this outrage with the ?Commerce Clause? ... States Constitution. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: good guys 1, brady 0 - Virginia legislature votes down creating a bureaucracy to track priva
    ... Lopez was about stretching the Commerce Clause. ... I just named two Supreme Court cases that say different. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Interstate commerce...
    ... and with regard to the actual meanings of specific terms critical to a proper understanding of the Commerce Clause: ... The apparent main thrust of this regulation was to federalize the imposts received from ports such as New York harbor in order to pay the Revolutionary War debts. ... This was, IMO, very short-sighted on the part of the framers because it means that the Commerce Clause does not speak to a generalized principle upon which the structure and powers of government are based, but to a very narrow and temporal concern of the framers which IMO could have been treated in a better manner. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)