Yes: the fact that no one who holds your view has a single written word from a single founder that says otherwise.
You still have not shown any evidence it was meant to say only interstate. I can hardly understand your problem with the actual text, I guess it was too obvious to anyone to bring it up.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have power… To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
“Among” means between, not within. Even SCOTUS didn’t dispute that. They just agrued speciously that any commerce within a state has the potential to affect commerce among the states.
Additionally, I submit as evidence, every single word written on this subject by every single member of the Revolutionary Generation that could be remotely considered a ‘founder’.
And, as I mentioned before, the ATF is itself unconstitutional, so it doesn’t even have the right to exist, much less control or regulate anything.
Among is not synonimous with between. Not even today, let alone in late 18. century.
Look up here. III. chapter.
I am wrong… sort of.
There was one founder (guess who) who later decided that the Interstate Commerce Clause meant that the Federal Gov’t could meddle in any and all trade.
Of course, it’s Hamilton, and the sly ol’ devil waited until the Constitution was in force, and he held a high position in Washington’s cabinet before ‘deciding’ this.
In other words, he actively worked to sell the Constitution as a whole, and the Interstate Commerce Clause in particular, as mostly benign and would not lead to Federal intervention in the area of trade, and then, after the coast was clear, he came out with his true position: that the Federal government should be absolutely as powerful as possible.
I should have guessed Hamilton.
Do you have any quote from the framers or the convention that by commerce they did not mean intrastate commerce.
You can make that argument if you want; but SCOTUS didn’t do so. The court held that federal regulation of intrastate trade is justified on the grounds that any commerce within a state has the potential to affect trade between states. Why create a roundabout argument if the constitution directly allows regulation of intrastate trade? The case to study is Wickard v. Filburn. The pull quote being: “…But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’”. Note how the court is carefull to relate the power to regulate to interstate comerce.
That isn’t how it works. I don’t have a quote from them saying that breathing air is vital to life, but I would be willing to bet that all of them, to a man, believed this was so.
The point is that you don’t have a single shred of documentary evidence from the period up until the ratification of the Constitution that supports your claim. Hence, it is rejected.
The activist judges of the court first made that interstate shit up in 1808. Ever since has been this nonsense excerberated. To rectify the problem they made that stuff up about necessray and proper in Filburn and others. This is similar to how due process was used to replace privileges and immunities, when the latter was castrated.
Sure, see how they said Congress can regulate Commerce
.
The point is that you don’t have a single shred of documentary evidence from the period up until the ratification of the Constitution that supports your claim. Hence, it is rejected.
I wondered how long it would be until someone mentioned Wickard v. Filburn.
Now, I wonder how long it will be before someone brings Thomas Woods into the discussion? Oh, about 3 seconds:
The Constitution: Four Disputed Clauses by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Now, I can’t remember which of these disputed clauses the commerce clause is, because I can’t listen to the link on this PC, but it’s one of them. Very good talk, with copious original source citations.
You mean the judges who sat during the lifetimes of the men who wrote and ratified the constitution and who might expect to have to put up with original intent arguments from the actual authors?
All of the documentary evidence supports my case. Seriously, what I am saying is well known amongst literally everyone who has ever studied this subject for more than 10 minutes. Click on the Woods clip above.
Except they didn’t. See Madison v. Marbury, which is that case in which the SC magically decided that the Constitution makes them (the SC) the final arbiters of what is Constitutional, despite the fact that nowhere in the text of the Constitution, nor in the Federalist or the Anti-Federalist Papers, nor in the Constitutional Convention, nor in the 12 State Ratifying Conventions, was there even the merest indication that that was the original intent of the Framers and Ratifiers.
Sure they did. Jefferson’s Anti-Federalists party argued stenuously against that case. They just lost.
I read her post wrong. I thought she (wait, it is a she, right?) was saying that the SC would rather tip-toe around the issues, so long as any Framers or Ratifiers were still alive. After I wrote my post, and I then reread her post more carefully, I realized that there was a nuanced difference between what she was aaying and what I was responding to. Not enough of a difference for me to bother editing the post.
And yeah, I have read Jefferson’s personal letters from during and just after that case. He was outraged.
EDIT: Ok, wait a minute. Hold the phone. You are the one I was responding to, and you are a different person than the other. Hmm… time for bed. I have been awake about a day and a half, and it is showing.
EDIT the 2nd: The point still stands, however: those Justices were perfectly willing to deal with, and ignore, arguments from the original framers and ratifiers of the Constitution–not only while they were still alive, but while they were still young and vibrant. It is literally true that not a single scrap of paper, with even a few scrawled words on it from the framing and ratification period can be used to support the decision in Madison v. Marbury.
Ok, goodnight.
He assumes what he wants to prove. The is no evidence of such word usage in contemporary english that the phrase means what you claim to mean.
Yes, Thomas Woods has an agenda to portray the Revolutionary Generation as lovers of liberty, despite the crushing weight of evidence to the contrary.
Dare not address me she!
I do not disagree.