Joined: 18 Feb 2007
|Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: Why Petition to Allow for which NO Power Exists to Disallow?
|Why Petition to Allow, for which NO Power Exists to Disallow?
Excluding all cases where State or local legislation exists to the contrary, why petition Congress, to have made, federal legislation allowing the People and their respective States to do that which they already have a constitutionally guaranteed Right to do (or not to do) in the first place according to the whole constitution — THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNION (fp84)?
Has anyone bothered to look into the background concerning giving Congress the power to make sumptuary laws — a direct regulatory power over such objects as habits, morals, spending, extravagance — and GAMBLING? and, in tracing that power, it is plain that it was, in convention during the writing of the constitution, twice moved and twice rejected so as to categorically deny to the Congress and the Federal government that direct regulatory power; and, having been twice moved and twice categorically denied, that power to make sumptuary laws was purposefully and deliberately omitted from the enumeration of legitimate powers having been consensually given up by the People and their respective States so as to reserve that power exclusively for themselves and to categorically withhold, deny and prohibit the exercising of that power, by the Federal government — other than through indirect means, only, to wit, as "provided for in the power of taxation." (In convention, Monday, August 20, 1787)
Who among us is foolish enough to deny that we have a Federal (not a National) government with only limited and enumerated powers? — and, that we have a Federal government with only those powers constitutionally given up by the People and their respective States; that all remaining powers are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People where they rightfully belong; and, that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is meant to settle any doubt as to this fundamental principle and point?
Consider, also, that which is said in just these few statements from the framers of our constitution — statements of truths that hardly begin to scratch the surface as to what is the real legitimate truth, in contrast to only lies perpetrated upon us...
.....Col. Mason. "The United States [Federal government] will have a qualified sovereignty only. The individual States will retain a part of the Sovereignty." (In convention, August 20, 1787)
....."The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, [instead] makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government." (Hamilton, Federalist No. 9)
....."...the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States." (Hamilton, Federalist No. 32)
....."...the proposed government cannot be deemed a National one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. (Madison, Federalist No. 39)
Considering that which is stated above, and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution added so as to remove any doubt on these points, where in the Constitution is this supposed enumerated (or suggested) power to make sumptuary laws — or directly regulate, separately, those objects that are included in that power?
No, it is not in the power to regulate commerce between State and State. Why? Because, the power to regulate commerce between State and State cannot include the power to directly regulate an object of commerce, and it cannot be used to illegitimately extend the arm of the Federal government to objects for which it has no legitimate power or authority — and, the encroachment into reserved sovereign jurisdictions of a State and into the object's manufacture and its trade within a State.
Following this further, it is plain that the power to regulate trade with State and State is likewise reserved to the States; for, the power to regulate trade between State and State can not include the power to regulate trade with State and State, which would be an encroachment upon the sovereignty of the States and the People and their right to freely trade amongst themselves — and, to also make agreements and compacts with each other and with foreign Nations with the consent of Congress, which makes this latter right not a denied right, but merely a right with oversight; for why include this one narrow constraint if the already given power to regulate commerce was meant to be an all encompassing exclusive right of Congress anyway?
Consider, also, why Congress was given the (concurrent) power to regulate commerce between State and State, to wit, to control interferences when they happen and not to be, itself, the source and creator of interferences:
....."Mr. SHERMAN. The power of the U. States to regulate trade being supreme can controul interferences of the State regulations when such interferences happen; so that there is no danger to be apprehended from a concurrent jurisdiction." (In convention, September 15, 1787)
If the States have not a concurrent jurisdiction, then why should Mr. Sherman plainly suggest that interferences can happen under the legitimate authority of State regulations, which may require congressional intervention when they happen?
Just as with the concurrent power to lay taxes (excluding those express prohibitions enumerated in the Constitution) in conjunction with a State's exclusive jurisdiction as to Laws of Descent, any congressional interference with those rights of a State is, according to Hamilton, making a tyrannical use of its powers:
"If the Federal Government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded." (Hamilton, Federalist No. 33)
"Suppose, by some forced constructions of its authority (which, indeed, cannot easily be imagined), the Federal legislature should attempt to vary the law of descent in any State, would it not be evident that, in making such an attempt, it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and infringed upon that of the State? Suppose, again, that upon the pretense of an interference with its revenues, it should undertake to abrogate a land-tax imposed by the authority of a State; would it not be equally evident that this was an invasion of that concurrent jurisdiction in respect to this species of tax, which its Constitution plainly supposes to exist in the State governments?" (Hamilton, Federalist No. 33)
Has not Congress already varied the Law of Descent of a State and its taxes — making an illegitimate use of the supremacy clause and using the pretense of interfering with commerce and taxes? Are there no like pretenses, and others, being employed to regulate that class of objects that fall under sumptuary laws — including GAMBLING?
Suppose we carried the same forced construction of its authority as is used today for the commerce clause, and applied it to the post-roads clause? Is not the analogy the same? and, as such, would it not clear the way for the Federal legislature to claim an exclusive jurisdiction over the establishment of all roads throughout the United States under the pretense that any road may be used, if not for interstate commerce, for conveying the post; and so, Congress and the Judiciary, conspiring together, may abrogate any authority of a State that it pleased that happens to be connected with roads? Under these same forced constructions and pretenses, is there not also an implied negative post roads clause? How many more negative clauses can be invented using such forced constructions?
Can it not be concluded, then, that under the limited and concurrent power to regulate commerce, only, (having been given no rights to directly regulate its objects — be it an article or a service), Congress can not, with that power, compel a State (or the People) to do a Thing or, as it pleases, to prohibit doing a Thing; and, rather than facilitating commerce, instead create interference where before there was none, without making a tyrannical use of its powers?
Think! — If the States have not a concurrent authority to regulate commerce between State and State, why insert, in the Constitution, express prohibitions on the States concerning the laying of imposts or duties on imports or exports, and duties of tonnage if the already given power to regulate commerce between State and State, not only implied an exclusive congressional power over all such regulation, but already included the power to directly regulate these objects that are plainly exclusive to interstate regulation?
Think! — How can it be, as stated by Madison, that "...the proposed government cannot be deemed a National one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects" and have, at the same time, the power to regulate commerce extend to all that which Madison says is to be the State's "residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects"?
Think! — How is the direct regulation or banning of objects, or the behaviors of the People and their habits, connected with regulating commerce between State and State — and, how is it connected with regulating commerce with foreign Nations and with Indian Tribes without even so much as a treaty?
Think! — Given that the power to make sumptuary laws was twice moved and twice rejected, why move to have, back then, such a power given to Congress in the first place to directly regulate certain objects if the direct regulation of those objects was already included in a power that had already been given — to wit, the power to regulate commerce between State and State, with foreign Nations and with Indian Tribes?
Think! — If the power to directly regulate any object that happens to be connected with commerce is included in the power to regulate commerce, then why include the express powers to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" — objects, that without, commerce could not even exist?
Now we have repugnant bills HR 2046, HR 2610, HR 2140 and HR 2607 calling for further regulations and changes in the current repugnant regulations. The mere existence of these new bills demonstrates the blatant arrogance, ignorance and naivety concerning the Constitution. The People and the States should be infuriated that our lawmakers, who are bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution and follow its rules and in whom we placed our unwavering faith and trust, would even consider passing any form of legislation against the People and their States that is patently contrary to the Constitution — using not powers that were constitutionally given up, but powers lawlessly usurped.
What is even more embarrassing and more damaging than the original repugnant legislation, is that these new bills that are now being proposed only compounds the original usurpations and embarrassments — if not unwittingly, then maliciously, adding legitimacy to that, which was to begin with, and still remains, illegitimate and should never have been allowed to be perpetrated into existence in the first place.
(This post is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not reproduce this post without express written permission from the poster. You may, however, disseminate a link to this post in any electronic communication or web page.)