Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Alliances change.LOL. So we have someone who is a Constitutional Originalist here who is telling a French person their opinion is "alien". The irony meter is exploding now.
Check who Jefferson et al. was reading and talking to about the time the Constitution was being hammered out. Oh and who was our primary ally during our war of independence?
Yeah.
Alien indeed.
This is not an example of trading or traffic in commodities; nobody is exchanging commodities for barter.
I would have no objection if the EPA was a legislative arm of Congress, delegated with the task of producing recommendations forwarded to Congress for its approval and vote.
If garbage was thrown onto a neighbor's property, that would fall under trespass, not commerce. The neighbor doesn't want the garbage, and isn't trading anything for it.throwing their garbage "out the back door" onto a neighboring property, that they don't own, does the government have the right to stop them from doing it?
Why not? Legislative-branch "EPA" advisors/committees recommends rules which Congress can vote on, and separate EPA agents in the executive-branch can enforce the approved rules.You can't have something like the EPA as part of the legislative arm per the Constitution.
Alliances change.
Your concern and priority may not be the concern or possess the same level of priority for others.
Thus, there is the Constitutional rule of law which allow everyone to have a say in the law-making process by providing each of us the ability to express and contribute our own concerns and priorities ... not by dictate of one or a few who think they know better than everyone else.
We must use the definitions from the 18th century to understand what the writers of the Constitution meant with the words they used.
This is not an example of trading or traffic in commodities; nobody is exchanging commodities for barter.
If garbage was thrown onto a neighbor's property, that would fall under trespass, not commerce.
Are you promoting anarchy?
It remains a Constitutional issue in my eyes, with unlawful executive-branch regulations in place.Yes, as should the Constitution. I was more making fun of your "alien" comment. I mean if you find the Constitution to be of value in light of how it was originally drafted you might want to look at who was influencing the drafters a little closer.
Besides, it isn't really a Constitutional issue. As has been noted: we already have federal regulations regarding environment so your point is moot anyway.
My purpose is merely to share ideas in the Public forum, and in that sense, I consider it a win.And, again, there are Federal Regulations covering this sort of thing. So your point is moot.
This is feeling like debating a Junior High School debate team who has taken ONE PHRASE and locked onto it at the expense of the larger points.
I'm sorry you are incapable of actually paying attention to what I've said.
Your opinion is noted. But your point is moot. You lose.
Sorry!
I understand that there are various rulings, precedents, etc. I am just pointing out that I believe they are incorrect and unconstitutional.In Gibbons v Ogden, the USSC ruled that ...
I don't agree with that understanding of "commerce". Otherwise, I could say: since you do not practice Buddhism, it impacts my commercial activities, which subjects your practice and religion to regulation.It's both. As I've pointed out several times now, air pollution is a byproduct of an interstate commercial activity. Waste removal/remediation and health care are also commercial activities. By pumping their commercial waste products into the air, power-generating states are forcing neighboring states to participate in a variety of commercial activities.
It remains a Constitutional issue in my eyes, with unlawful executive-branch regulations in place.
I understand that there are various rulings, precedents, etc. I am just pointing out that I believe they are incorrect and unconstitutional.
I don't agree with that understanding of "commerce". Otherwise, I could say: since you do not practice Buddhism, it impacts my commercial activities, which subjects your practice and religion to regulation.
Feel free to look it up: my definition was based on an early version of Bouvier's and Black's Law Dictionary.You claim to be taking the originalist position of basing your perception of "constitutionality" on what the framers originally perceived or intended their words to mean. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not that's the best approach, but that's a separate issue. What I'm saying is that even within the originalist framework, you haven't demonstrated that your claims are correct. Please show us how the framers would have understood the definition of "commerce" to be as narrow as you claim. Can you do that?
First argument: Releasing air pollution is simply a side-effect of commerce, but is not commerce itself.What is there not to agree with anything I said?
The electricity market is an interstate commercial system.
Electricity is sold across state lines.
Electricity futures are traded across state lines.
Fuel for power plants is purchased and transported across state lines.
There is a cost to removing waste products from power plants, and there are commercial entities that service that market.
There is a cost to treating the negative health and environmental impacts of these waste products (i.e. pollution) and there are commercial entities that service those markets.
If I'm a coal-fired power plant and you're a neighboring state, and I want you to process my industrial waste, I could do one of two things:
I could hire you to do it, or
I could force you to do it by dumping it on you.
The first is obviously commerce, but the second is, too, since there is still a good or commodity being exchanged. The only differences are that you didn't agree to participate in the transaction, and I cheated you out of payment. Either way, I still get the good/service of having my waste processed.
Additionally, even if you don't want to consider my freedom from waste products a "good", my commercial activity (which is itself interstate) would still compel you to engage in further commercial activities of dealing with my commercial waste products. Commerce in one state triggering commerce in another state is interstate commerce.
Feel free to look it up: my definition was based on an early version of Bouvier's and Black's Law Dictionary.
First argument: Releasing air pollution is simply a side-effect of commerce, but is not commerce itself.
Everything then literally becomes interstate commerce, if you don't limit it to commerce itself, but also include all side-effects of commerce. It is the height of absurdity, and defeats the purpose of having the clause at all.
- Otherwise, we can argue that religious activity done in one state triggers the side-effect of commercial activity in another state which makes it interstate commerce, thus making your religious activity subject to regulation.
- Or, it can also be argued that: simply because people defecate and releases CO2 into the air after engaging in commerce, those side-effects (defecation and CO2 release) is also interstate commerce, which then makes every activity of a person's whole body, mind, and soul also subject to regulation.
Second argument: The Commerce Clause gives regulatory authority [the power to prescribe rules over commerce] to the Legislative Branch (Congress) ... not to the EPA which belongs to the Executive Branch.
Feel free to look it up: my definition was based on an early version of Bouvier's and Black's Law Dictionary.
COMMERCE The various agreements which have for their object facilitating exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man with an intent to realize profit. Any reciprocal agreements between two persons by which one delivers to the other a thing the latter accepts and for which he pays consideration: if the consideration be money it is called a sale if any other thing money, it is called exchange or barter.
The powers conferred upon congress to regulate commerce among the several states are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce known or in use when the constitution was adopted but keep pace with the progress of the country and adapt themselves to the new developments of time and circumstances.
First argument: Releasing air pollution is simply a side-effect of commerce, but is not commerce itself.
Everything then literally becomes interstate commerce, if you don't limit it to commerce itself, but also include all side-effects of commerce. It is the height of absurdity, and defeats the purpose of having the clause at all.
- Otherwise, we can argue that religious activity done in one state triggers the side-effect of commercial activity in another state which makes it interstate commerce, thus making your religious activity subject to regulation.
- Or, it can also be argued that: simply because people defecate and releases CO2 into the air after engaging in commerce, those side-effects (defecation and CO2 release) is also interstate commerce, which then makes every activity of a person's whole body, mind, and soul also subject to regulation.
The key to understanding that ruling is that it was made by a USDC (U.S. District Court) - not a DCUS (District Court of the U.S.).The courts apparently disagree with you.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/287/624/1492241/
Feel free to find and quote an earlier definition that contradicts that entry.lol
John Bouvier was born in 1787. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. Gibbons v Ogden was decided in 1824. The first edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary wasn't published until 1839. It's hard to argue that the Constitution was based on his early definition or that Gibbons v Ogden usurped his definition when his dictionary was published later than either of them.
Incidentally, the first edition is available from google books, and the entry for Commerce is on page 337:
https://books.google.com/books?id=YCRAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=commerce&f=false
It's quite clear from reading the entire entry that he was informed by existing law and precedent.
They are two different things. One is cause, the other is effect. The fact is, everything is linked in the world, nothing is completely separate, therefore everything is "commerce"? Now that is absurd.You've still failed to establish why this is a distinction that matters. Is regulating the byproducts of commerce not also regulating commerce?
The key to understanding that ruling is that it was made by a USDC (U.S. District Court) - not a DCUS (District Court of the U.S.).
USDCs are Legislative Branch tribunals & judges over territories belonging to the federal United States. DCUSs are Judicial Branch courts & judges over Constitutional States separate from the federal United States.
Feel free to find and quote an earlier definition that contradicts that entry.
They are two different things. One is cause, the other is effect. The fact is, everything is linked in the world, nothing is completely separate, therefore everything is "commerce"? Now that is absurd.
Quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court:I don't believe there is such a difference. Perhaps you could show me in the US Code.
Care to try again?It does appear that this is one of the "patriot myths"
Marshall was only one delegate, and a federalist, who happened to be in power as Chief Justice. There were other delegates, anti-federalists, who opposed such clauses.You're interpreting it in the way you wish they intended it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?