FCC Reportedly Will Ban Another Four-Letter Word

[Johnny Morgan]

Quote from: Johnny Morgan on July 06, 2006, 01:13:45 pm
No, it is not the same because you have added the phrase "the citizens of". But as drafted, and as read by every Founder,

No.

What do you mean "No"? Name a Founder who did NOT think "regulate commerce...among the several States" meant regulating commerce transacted by businesses in different states. You can't because every single one of them believed that was what the clause meant. I quoted for you James Madison writing in Federalist 72--he wrote the clause, he should know what it means. It applies to the regulation of commerce (regulating business) taking place between companies based in different states. There is NO MENTION of it applying to states as entities themselves only.

Congress ignored the Constitution by taking thie power and the USSC backed them up, giving them that power.

Once again, Congress did no such thing. Congress, and Congressalone, has the power and authority to regulate interstate commerce, under Article I. Interstate commerce is commerce taking place across state lines, by any business entity, not solely between states themselves. The Supreme Court gave no one that power, because the power was already given in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, cl. 3 states clearly. I am really concerned that you fail to recognize that, as it was one of the major points of the whole Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Quote
In 1787, not a single state transacted its own business

Then who do you think did?

PRIVATE BUSINESS! Businesses transacted commerce then and now. States as commercial entities (outside of land grants) is a fairly recent idea. But commerce is carried out by business, individuals, consumers, buyers, purchasers, etc. Private business is the heartbeat of this country--as it was in 1787. Before then, each state had the power to levy taxes, tariffs, permits, etc. on private business transactions entering or leaving their state. As a result, states would combat protective tariffs by other states by enacting their own tariffs. It all harmed private commerce. The Founders made sure that such vindictiveness and economic harm did not happen again by taking away the power of states to levy tariffs, etc. on interstate business and placing it solely in the hands of the federal government. That way, each state could not set its own tariffs or taxes or other regulations for either punitive or protectionist purposes (that is, to harm another state's businesses or protect its own businesses).

Quote
--so to read the "among the several States" language to mean commerce between the states themselves would be

to read it as written

It would have no meaning, because states themselves did not engage in commerce in 1787. Therefore, until the 20th century, the clause would have no meaning. Is this what the Founders intended--for a clause to lay dormant for 125 years or more?

Of course not. That reading would be absurd, and cannot be seriously accepted. It has nothing to do with believing the government (although, it is inherent in the Constitution--the same one you quote--that the Supreme Court shall adjudicate cases and controversies, and as such, shall interpret the Constitution and its meaning). A plain reading of the clause as you purport it to mean would lead to an absurd nothingness, which is not only not to encouraged, but would lead to the Founders placing 125 year "red herrings" in the document. Do you honestly believe they did that? Or does each and every word in the document have a meaning?

It only gives the authority to regulate the state's action not the private business' actions.

Did you read what Madison said? You are wrong, and your reading is wrong--why do you persist in it in the face of, not only 219 years of precedence and law, but also in face of the drafter's statements? Are you saying that you know better than James Madison who wrote the words?

Quote
But the Constitution does not forbid the federal government's "meddling" in broadcast communications.

Not specifically, because, it doesn't have to. However, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments do it on a general basis.

Incorrect. The Commerce Clause does permit the federal government to regulate broadcast communications.

But, let's assume for the moment that your argument is right and the federal government is prohibited from "meddling" by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Who licenses broadcast stations--the states?

This really is an absurd argument based on your reading of a clause in the Constitution that has never been accepted in the majority circles, and is held onto as a belief by only a very very small minority of people. The fact that not a single Founder agreed should be telling you something, but apparently it does not.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

What do you mean "No"?

What part of "no" do you not understand?

Name a Founder who did NOT think "regulate commerce...among the several States" meant regulating commerce transacted by businesses in different states. You can't because every single one of them believed that was what the clause meant. I quoted for you James Madison writing in Federalist 72--he wrote the clause, he should know what it means.

Try reading what he wrote, not what you want it to mean.

There is NO MENTION of it applying to states as entities themselves only.

That is the problem with people today, they ignore the reality and think the only things prohibited are things specifically mentioned...it is the other way around. If it is not specifically granted to the government, it is prohibited.

Once again, Congress did no such thing. Congress, and Congressalone, has the power and authority to regulate interstate commerce, under Article I.

per the clause, this is true if you are talking about state action.

Interstate commerce is commerce taking place across state lines, by any business entity, not solely between states themselves. The Supreme Court gave no one that power,

The USSC gave them the power beyond what the commerce clause spicifically grants teh feds.

I am really concerned that you fail to recognize that, as it was one of the major points of the whole Constitutional Convention in 1787.

You are concerned that I can read, instead of just accepting the load of BS the government tells me to believe?

Quote
In 1787, not a single state transacted its own business

Then who do you think did?

PRIVATE BUSINESS![/quote]


Private businesses transacted all state business? care to back that up?

It would have no meaning, because states themselves did not engage in commerce in 1787. Therefore, until the 20th century, the clause would have no meaning. Is this what the Founders intended--for a clause to lay dormant for 125 years or more?

Of course not. That reading would be absurd, and cannot be seriously accepted. It has nothing to do with believing the government (although, it is inherent in the Constitution--the same one you quote--that the Supreme Court shall adjudicate cases and controversies, and as such, shall interpret the Constitution and its meaning). A plain reading of the clause as you purport it to mean would lead to an absurd nothingness, which is not only not to encouraged, but would lead to the Founders placing 125 year "red herrings" in the document. Do you honestly believe they did that? Or does each and every word in the document have a meaning?

Yes, every word has meaning just as much as words not used have jsut as much meaning. Had they meant it to regulate private intities, they would have said so.

Did you read what Madison said?

Yes, did you?

You are wrong,

Looking in the mirror are you!

and your reading is wrong

Where in his statement does he mention private business?

why do you persist in it in the face of, not only 219 years of precedence and law,

That has been covered.

but also in face of the drafter's statements?

Not "in the face of", but in reality "per".

Are you saying that you know better than James Madison who wrote the words?

Actually, I don't disagree with what you quoted from him, only your desired spin as to it meaning something it does not state.

Incorrect. The Commerce Clause does permit the federal government to regulate broadcast communications.

You must be reading the Demilcan or Republicrat version...the real one says nothing about broadcast communications.

But, let's assume for the moment that your argument is right and the federal government is prohibited from "meddling" by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Who licenses broadcast stations--the states?

No one, "licensing" is a state invention.

This really is an absurd argument based on your reading of a clause in the Constitution that has never been accepted in the majority circles, and is held onto as a belief by only a very very small minority of people. The fact that not a single Founder agreed should be telling you something, but apparently it does not.

You have not shown a single founder that states anything different! If anything, your Madison quote supports my literal reading of the Constitution.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Your abject failure to acede to what the government has operated under for the entire existence of the Constitution is getting very tiring. You have failed to note any Founder who supports your limited, myopic, and wrong view of the commerce clause, instead stating without any support that Madison supports you.

In Federalist 42, he directly and uncontrovertedly states that duties were imposed by states on foreign (other states') private businesses transacting commerce, which the Constitution would prohibit, leaving to the sole and exclusive authority of the fedeal government:

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.

Madison specified that the commerce was between makers and consumers--private individuals. It was on them that the duties imposed by states under the Confederacy would fall. And, he prefaces this scenario with: "The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual."

I am quite unsure how you are able to argue that Madison is in anyway condoning such an absurd reading of the commerce clauuse in Article I as you wish to persist in professing. Your reading is supported by no practice, no Founders' statements, and no law. If you wish to be a renegade, that's fine, but let it be known that you are alone in that category.

Private businesses transacted all state business? care to back that up?

Once again, in 1787, NO STATE engaged in commerce--no state produced goods, no state sold goods. States may have bought goods from private companies, and in that sense they were regulated as much as other commercial entities. But all commerce was carried out by private individuals. Your reticence here is quite tiring and is heading quickly for absurdium.

Had they meant it to regulate private intities, they would have said so.

Not when the phrase they used had all the meaning in the world. Everyone who drafted the document in 1787 knew what "among the several States" meant. The Founders' did not write the document for you to nit pick 219 years later to find a hidden, and minority, redaing of a phrase that has been used as intended by them for all of these 219 years.

Where in his statement does he mention private business?

"with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former..." That is as plain as it comes.

You must be reading the Demilcan or Republicrat version...the real one says nothing about broadcast communications.

First off, now I see where this is all coming from. You are at least a government-leery libertarian, or at worst an anarchist. And everything is a political ploy to you.

But of course broadcast communications are not mentioned in the Commerce Clause--they didn't exist in 1787. But interstate commerce among private individuals DID exist in 1787, and the federal government has the power and authority to regulate that. Broadcast communications are interstate commerce among private individuals, and thus, the federal government has the power and authority to regulate them.

No one, "licensing" is a state invention.

Yes. And if the fedeal government does not have the power--in your world--to regulate broadcast communications, then the states themselves have that power. Whether they use it or not is a policy argument, but in no way can you say that the states do NOT have the power to regulate that business. If the commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating interstate commerce between private parties--as you wrongly allege--then the states may continue to regulate to their hearts desiure as they did before 1787. You cannot have it both ways: either the states gave up that right to the federal government in 1787, or the states retain that power now.

If anything, your Madison quote supports my literal reading of the Constitution.

No it doesn't, as I have shown you repeatedly. The burden shifted to you to show me any Founder who agrees with your interpretation--an impossible task because every Founder agreed with Madison, and with the reading of the clause since 1787. Because you disagree means nothing more than the fact that you will have a very difficult time trying to persuade folks to adopt such an unorthodox, myopic, disasterous reading of the clause, and to forget and in fact, if I read you right, actively ignore the Constitutional interpretations of the Congress and the Supreme Court, two bodies in whom those powers solely rest.

Good luck, you'll need it. Hope the state of Massachusetts imposes an immense tariff on your next Internet purchase. After all, in your view, the states may tariff on private business to their hearts choosing. Who is to stop them?

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Your abject failure to acede to what the government has operated under for the entire existence of the Constitution is getting very tiring.

I don't dispute the government has acted beyond what the Constitution allows in regulating private business.

You have failed to note any Founder who supports your limited

An obvious and self evident statement as the commerce clause doesn't warrant further discussion. It is a very plain statement granting the feds some control over states.

myopic, and wrong view of the commerce clause

You think it is wrong because you refuse to acknowledge the actual text.

instead stating without any support that Madison supports you.

You posted the support. He states in your quote that it is to give the feds the power to control the states' powers to levy taxes on goods crossing state lines. He does not say it grands the feds the power to control those goods.

In Federalist 42, he directly and uncontrovertedly states that duties were imposed by states on foreign (other states') private businesses transacting commerce, which the Constitution would prohibit, leaving to the sole and exclusive authority of the fedeal government:

Which is what I just stated above.

Madison specified that the commerce was between makers and consumers--private individuals. It was on them that the duties imposed by states under the Confederacy would fall. And, he prefaces this scenario with: "The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual."

No where does it give the feds any authority over the goods, only over the states.

I am quite unsure how you are able to argue that Madison is in anyway condoning such an absurd reading of the commerce clauuse in Article I as you wish to persist in professing.

I don't understand how you can not conceive the difference between a state and a private business.

Your reading is supported by no practice, no Founders' statements, and no law.

As long as you ignore the obvious language in the Constitution and in Madison's quote you posted.

Private businesses transacted all state business? care to back that up?

Once again, in 1787, NO STATE engaged in commerce--no state produced goods, no state sold goods. States may have bought goods from private companies, and in that sense they were regulated as much as other commercial entities. But all commerce was carried out by private individuals. Your reticence here is quite tiring and is heading quickly for absurdium.

You stated that in 1787 no state transacted their own business. I asked who you thought transacted state business and you said private business....

Not when the phrase they used had all the meaning in the world.

Yes and they chose their words carefully. They used the word state when they meant state, people when they meant people, Congress when they meant Congress, etc.

Everyone who drafted the document in 1787 knew what "among the several States" meant.

Yes, but unfortunately, like you, almost no one does today.

The Founders' did not write the document for you to nit pick 219 years later to find a hidden, and minority, redaing of a phrase that has been used as intended by them for all of these 219 years.

No, they intended it to be used as written, not spun to mean things it does not state as you are trying to do.

Where in his statement does he mention private business?

"with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former..." That is as plain as it comes.

Let me rephrase that question to what I meant...Where does his statement mention the feds having any authority over the private business?

You must be reading the Demilcan or Republicrat version...the real one says nothing about broadcast communications.

First off, now I see where this is all coming from. You are at least a government-leery libertarian, or at worst an anarchist. And everything is a political ploy to you.

But of course broadcast communications are not mentioned in the Commerce Clause--they didn't exist in 1787. But interstate commerce among private individuals DID exist in 1787, and the federal government has the power and authority to regulate that. Broadcast communications are interstate commerce among private individuals, and thus, the federal government has the power and authority to regulate them.

No one, "licensing" is a state invention.

Yes. And if the fedeal government does not have the power--in your world--to regulate broadcast communications, then the states themselves have that power. Whether they use it or not is a policy argument, but in no way can you say that the states do NOT have the power to regulate that business. If the commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating interstate commerce between private parties--as you wrongly allege--then the states may continue to regulate to their hearts desiure as they did before 1787. You cannot have it both ways: either the states gave up that right to the federal government in 1787, or the states retain that power now.[/quote]

Or neither have the constitutional authority to regulate private comerce.

If anything, your Madison quote supports my literal reading of the Constitution.

No it doesn't, as I have shown you repeatedly.[.quote]


Yes it does as I have so plainly shown you repeatedly...If you would just read it, you would see.

The burden shifted to you to show me any Founder who agrees with your interpretation

You have not shown that any founder disagrees with me. Even the Madison quote you provided shows he believed the clause was to control the state, not to control private business.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Let's start off with your biggest constitutional and historical fallacy: the states and/or the federal government have the authority to regulate commerce, that is private business. That regulation predates the Constitution, and was a power specifically granted to the states in the Articles of Confederation. It has historical depth in America going all the way back to the colonial governments. You cannot say that there is no constitutional authority to regulate commerce--if the federal government is not given that power, it belongs to the states. There is no other constitutional provision relating to it.

If Article I, sec, 8, cl.3 does not apply, and the federal government cannot regulate interstate commerce, then under the Tenth Amendment, the states have the power and authority (as they historically did) to regulate private businesses. That is not debateable.

Second, the federal government cannot control states: they are co-sovereigns. Only when the federal government spends or grants money to the states, or the states engage in commerce as actors, or the states are violating a Constitutional provision--like, for example, regulating interstate commerce, violating equal protection or the First Amendment, or violating the Fifth Amendment--may the federal government "control" them, and only then by an explicit constitutional grant of power, like the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause. Otherwise, the federal government has no control over states and the states can, constitutionally, tell them to go to hell if they try.

You're correct that Madison is saying that the federal government has the power to control the states' power to levy discrimnatory taxes, tariffs, permits, etc. on interstate goods. That is, states may NOT levy those taxes, tariffs, etc. if they affect interstate commerce or provide a burden on another state's company's commercial activities. The only entity which may impose such taxes, tariffs, etc. is the federal government, as part of a comprehensive scheme of national interstate commerce regulation. As part of this, the federal government required interstate carriers to register with the ICC (now defunct; same operations under the DOT) and get permits for interstate hauling. The government also required businesses (like the railroads) to meet safety standards. That is because the states are either ill-equipped to do so, or they would result in confusing, discriminatory, redundant, conflucting, or burdensome state-by-state regulations.

You can argue, policy-wise, that the government (be it state or federal) shouldn't regulate private business, but that is much much different from saying that no one has the power to do so. If it wasn't the federal government, the states would have the power (under the Tenth Amendment). As it is, the federal government DOES have that power under the Commerce Clause, so the states are powerless to handle interstate commerce matters.

You stated that in 1787 no state transacted their own business. I asked who you thought transacted state business and you said private business....

No state transacted their own commerce--that is, no state produced materials and sold them on the market. They did purchase items, as governments always have, from private businesses. Private businesses also purchase and sell goods to other businesses or consumers. If those commercial transactions go across state lines, and become interstate commerce, a state may not regulate it. Only the federal government may regulate that commerce, whether a state is buying or a private business or consumer is buying. It is not realistic or a correct reading of the commerce clause to say that the federal government may only regulate buying and selling between states themselves (between the state government of Virginia and the state government of Pennsylvania) because in 1787 such a thing did not happen. Virginia did not produce any goods themselves to sell to Pennsylvania. Virginia companies did--and Pennsylvania may have bought from them. And in such a commercial transaction, the federal government may regulate it, as they may regulate a transaction between a Pennsylvania company buying from a Virginia company. What cannot happen is Pennsylvania regulating that transaction--it concerns interstate commerce, and therefore, a single state may not regulate that transaction.

No, they intended it to be used as written, not spun to mean things it does not state as you are trying to do.

They intended it to be used as written under the meaning it had when written. And the phrase "among the several States" did NOT mean between state governments--it meant commerce by private buisnesses transacted among businesses in other states. You cannot come along now and say that "among the several States" means between state governments, because the Founders did not understand the phrase to be so limited.

There was NO clause in the Constitution that had less debate on its meaning. In fact, all of the debate in the Convention of 1787 on Article I, sec. 8, cl. 3 revolved around foreign commerce (from other nations), and Indian commerce. There was not a single statement against the interstate commerce clause at the Convention, and Madison states that in Federalist 42 it was universally accpeted to be a federal power.

Your obstinance in repeatedly falling back on "I'm right, you're wrong" is getting very obstructing and tiring. I have repeatedly shown you the meaning of that phrase, what the Founders believed it meant, how it works in practice. And your only response has been to say that the words mean what I want them to mean.

That is not how the government works. If you wish to persuade people that your reading of the Commerce Clause is correct you have to do a damn sight better than "this is what it says, so there." What is most troubling is that you have little to no respect for the rule of law and the government. Without that, there would be no Constitution. The rule of law preceded the Founding, and was taken for granted as being the reason behind the Constitution.

I suggest you read more history, Constitutional history, legal history, and make less grandiose statements that have no basis in law or fact.

Start with Gibbons v. Ogden, where Chief Justice Marshall pretty much explains the damn clause.

This is my final statement on this topic, because I'm pretty sure your response will be to say I'm wrong and have nothing to back it up. Show me one court that has accepted your reading of the Commerce Clause.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Let's start off with your biggest constitutional and historical fallacy: the states and/or the federal government have the authority to regulate commerce, that is private business./quote]

That is your fallacy, not mine.

That regulation predates the Constitution, and was a power specifically granted to the states in the Articles of Confederation. It has historical depth in America going all the way back to the colonial governments. You cannot say that there is no constitutional authority to regulate commerce--if the federal government is not given that power, it belongs to the states. There is no other constitutional provision relating to it.

Not necessarily. It belongs to the states or the people (meaning self regulation).

Second, the federal government cannot control states: they are co-sovereigns.

They do it all the time. remember federally mandated speed limits?

Only when the federal government spends or grants money to the states, or the states engage in commerce as actors, or the states are violating a Constitutional provision--like, for example, regulating interstate commerce, violating equal protection or the First Amendment, or violating the Fifth Amendment--may the federal government "control" them, and only then by an explicit constitutional grant of power, like the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause. Otherwise, the federal government has no control over states and the states can, constitutionally, tell them to go to hell if they try.

The feds create unconstitutional departments, administrations, etc to control the states.

You're correct that Madison is saying that the federal government has the power to control the states' power to levy discrimnatory taxes, tariffs, permits, etc. on interstate goods. That is, states may NOT levy those taxes, tariffs, etc. if they affect interstate commerce or provide a burden on another state's company's commercial activities. The only entity which may impose such taxes, tariffs, etc. is the federal government, as part of a comprehensive scheme of national interstate commerce regulation. As part of this, the federal government required interstate carriers to register with the ICC (now defunct; same operations under the DOT) and get permits for interstate hauling. The government also required businesses (like the railroads) to meet safety standards. That is because the states are either ill-equipped to do so, or they would result in confusing, discriminatory, redundant, conflucting, or burdensome state-by-state regulations.

You can argue, policy-wise, that the government (be it state or federal) shouldn't regulate private business, but that is much much different from saying that no one has the power to do so.

I never said they don't have the power...They do have the power because they took it and the USSC backed them up. I said they do not have the constutional authority...Which they don't.

You stated that in 1787 no state transacted their own business. I asked who you thought transacted state business and you said private business....

They intended it to be used as written under the meaning it had when written.

Yes, and state meant state at the writing.

And the phrase "among the several States" did NOT mean between state governments--it meant commerce by private buisnesses transacted among businesses in other states. You cannot come along now and say that "among the several States" means between state governments, because the Founders did not understand the phrase to be so limited.

There was NO clause in the Constitution that had less debate on its meaning.

That's because it so clearly stated it pertained to "states".

Your obstinance in repeatedly falling back on "I'm right, you're wrong" is getting very obstructing and tiring.

Just playing your game. you ignoring plain english is getting tiring.

I have repeatedly shown you the meaning of that phrase, what the Founders believed it meant,

Yes, you showed how Madison believed it only pertained to controlling states imposition of taxes.

And your only response has been to say that the words mean what I want them to mean.

No I said you are trying to make them mean what you want them to mean, but that they actually mean what they say.

not how the government works.

That is what I said from the beginning, It works by ignoring the text of the Constitution and spinning it to mean what ever they want it to mean and the USSC generally backs them up instead of upholding the Constitution.

wish to persuade people that your reading of the Commerce Clause is correct you have to do a damn sight better than "this is what it says, so there."

The Constitution is plainly written, if you read it as written, there would be no debate.

What is most troubling is that you have little to no respect for the rule of law

I have respect for natural law, rule of law once made slavery legal. I would have more respect for the rule of law if those making the laws had any respect what so ever for the Constitution, which was created to be their guide.

Without that, there would be no Constitution. The rule of law preceded the Founding, and was taken for granted as being the reason behind the Constitution.

Natural law was the foundation of the Constitution.

I suggest you read more history,

I suggest you bother to actually read the Constitution as it is written instead of the way you wish it was written (or how the government tells you to believe it was written).

This is my final statement on this topic

good

, because I'm pretty sure your response will be to say I'm wrong and have nothing to back it up.

wrong again.

Show me one court that has accepted your reading of the Commerce Clause.

Courts have the interest of advancing their employer's power just like Congress and Administration. I do not know all the court cases ever presented regarding the clause, nor do I have access to a law library. I am arguing what the Constitution states, not what the government wants to control (policy).

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Johnny,
What twisted logic is Congress using to validate their impending attempt to control online gambling?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

1. One comment on your big response to me, about speed limits. The federal government could control speed limits because interstates are highways funded, at least in part, by federal money. As a condition of receiving those federal dollars, the states had to accept the federal conditions that attached to them. One of those conditions was that each state had to adopt a 55 MPH speed limit (same with the 21 y.o. drinking age). No state was forced to adopt a 55 speed limit, but if they wanted the federal money, they had to. In fact, the determination was left to the state. There was never a federal law setting speed limits--though, seemingly, there could be, as a regulation of interstate commerce.

Lousiana never took federal highway money--still doesn't (that may change post-Katrina). Lousiana never had a 55 MPH speed limit, and their drinking age was 18. Their highways also were crap, because the state didn't have the money to fix them.

2. The Congress is basing its attempt to control online gambling in 3 ways, all commerce related.

a. It wants to ban the use of credit cards to gamble online. Credit cards are financial transactions using the wires, which flow through interstate commerce. They can regulate wire communications used in interstate commerce, and therefore, can regulate the use of credit cards flowing through thr wires.

b. The Internet is an interstate commercial marketplace. Its information also flows through the wires, which Congress may regulate.

c. Online gambling sites are based overseas, many in Costa Rica and the Caribbean. Congress may regulate foreign commerce, which online gambling is, under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3--and ONLY Congress may regulate foreign commerce.

Combining all three, Congress surely can regulate online gambling.

Should they? No. But that's a policy argument, and is not a constitutional argument.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

2. The Congress is basing its attempt to control online gambling in 3 ways, all commerce related.

a. It wants to ban the use of credit cards to gamble online. Credit cards are financial transactions using the wires, which flow through interstate commerce. They can regulate wire communications used in interstate commerce, and therefore, can regulate the use of credit cards flowing through thr wires.

b. The Internet is an interstate commercial marketplace. Its information also flows through the wires, which Congress may regulate.

c. Online gambling sites are based overseas, many in Costa Rica and the Caribbean. Congress may regulate foreign commerce, which online gambling is, under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3--and ONLY Congress may regulate foreign commerce.

Combining all three, Congress surely can regulate online gambling.

Should they? No. But that's a policy argument, and is not a constitutional argument.

According to your pervious definition of Commerce, it does not apply as there are no "goods" being produced and exchanged, only money for sevices.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I NEVER defined commerce as goods only. I used goods solely as an example.

Commerce includes goods, services, acts, promises, etc.

Commerce is anything for which there are contractual or quasi-contractual relations, with consideration (normally money, but not always) paid for a promise made (normally the delivery of something, be it goods or services). If you want a dictionary definition, I'll provide that as well:

"the exchange or buying and selling of goods, commodities, property, or services esp. on a large scale and involving transportation from place to place"

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996)

Providing a site for gambling is a service, on a large scale (an online bettinghouse), and involves transporting that bet from your computer to the gambling house for placement, using wires and the Internet.

Sounds like interstate or international commerce to me.

But thanks for being extra-obtuse.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

I NEVER defined commerce as goods only. I used goods solely as an example.

You stated "No state transacted their own commerce". They provide services, the logical implication is that service is not a form of commerce.

Commerce includes goods, services, acts, promises, etc.

Commerce is anything for which there are contractual or quasi-contractual relations, with consideration (normally money, but not always) paid for a promise made (normally the delivery of something, be it goods or services). If you want a dictionary definition, I'll provide that as well:

"the exchange or buying and selling of goods, commodities, property, or services esp. on a large scale and involving transportation from place to place"

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996)

Providing a site for gambling is a service, on a large scale (an online bettinghouse), and involves transporting that bet from your computer to the gambling house for placement, using wires and the Internet.

Sounds like interstate or international commerce to me.

But thanks for being extra-obtuse.

I don't dispute this definition of "commerce", only your definition of "state".

 

[Johnny Morgan]

They provide services, the logical implication is that service is not a form of commerce.

Are you talking about welfare, street cleaning, police, fire, etc.? Yes, those are services, but they do not take place in commerce. Taxpayers and citizens are provided those services as part of the price of citizenship--they pay taxes, and as a result, they demand (through policy) that those things be taken care of.

That is not commerce.

Now, if those items are done by private firms hired by the state of California, then the state and the private firm have engaged in commerce; and if the private firm was located in Montana, the federal government can regulate that transaction, because it is interstate commerce. It could regulate it whether California was buying the services or not. If ABC Corp. in California was buying those services from XYZ Corp. in Montana, the federal government (and no state) could regulate that transaction.

If you dispute my definition of "state," what is YOUR definition and how am I wrong?

 

[GRAYWOLF]

They provide services, the logical implication is that service is not a form of commerce.

Are you talking about welfare, street cleaning, police, fire, etc.? Yes, those are services, but they do not take place in commerce. Taxpayers and citizens are provided those services as part of the price of citizenship--they pay taxes, and as a result, they demand (through policy) that those things be taken care of.

That is not commerce.

Now, if those items are done by private firms hired by the state of California, then the state and the private firm have engaged in commerce; and if the private firm was located in Montana, the federal government can regulate that transaction, because it is interstate commerce. It could regulate it whether California was buying the services or not. If ABC Corp. in California was buying those services from XYZ Corp. in Montana, the federal government (and no state) could regulate that transaction.

If you dispute my definition of "state," what is YOUR definition and how am I wrong?

Relating to its use in the Constitution:
One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government.

According to you state is anyone within the borders of the US.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Relating to its use in the Constitution:
One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government.

With the exception of "autonomous," that's pretty much the definition. Problem is, if they're autonomous, they can't be under a sovereign government. And the United States are not under a sovereign in all respects--they are co-equal, and are inferior only in those matters upon which the federal government can constitutionally and does legislate on (like interstate commerce).

According to you state is anyone within the borders of the US.

I said no such thing. A state is a political entity. A person cannot be a state. What my whole point has been, which you have just bastardized, is that the phrase "among the several States" in Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3 does not mean the federal government can only regulate the states (the political bodies known as states). The commerce clause gives only the federal government to regulate commerce taking place among the states, whether done by those states as commercial actors or done by private businesses located in those states.

Nowhere have I given "state" the definition you wish to attach to my name.

Your argument is about "states" being the primary word, where mine has always been that "among the several States" as a phrase means commerce taking place by entities in those states. States are not the commercial actors to which the clause was aimed.

Before 1787, state A could levy tariffs, taxes, permits, requirements, etc. on outside states' shipments, billed to the company sending the goods or services and paid for by the consumer. As a result of these taxes and tariffs, state B levied its own taxes and tariffs on shipments coming from state A into state B, which raised the price of goods and services and the costs borne by producers and consumers.

During the convention, the Founders realized that the incongruent, discriminatory, and economically disasterous state tariff and tax system on interstate commerce was failing the country's economic system. Goods were being held up if taxes and tariffs weren't paid. So, the Founders decided to take such regulatory tariffs out of the hands of the states and rest the power of interstate commerce regulation--which previously belonged to each a state--and rest it solely in the hands of the federal government. Thus, no longer could state A levy its own tariff on goods or services from state B--only the federal government could levy those tariffs. Furthermore, any state attempt to regulate interstate commerce was unconstitutional, including attempts by states to protect their own state's private company's from competition by other states' companies.

Never has the Commerce Clause meant only that the federal government could regulate the state's handling of interstate commerce (which it could), but it also meant that the federal government had the sole and exclusive power and authority to regulate interstate commerce among private businesses. Whether it chose to exercise this power is a policy decision, and for the first 100 or so years, the federal government was fairly permissive.

But there is no reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause which prevents the federal government from regulating interstate commerce among private businesses. If that commerce takes place "among the several States" (not BY the several States), it is within Congress' purview to regulate it.

If it is purely intrastate commerce, without any interstate relationship, then Congress may not regulate it.

There is zero evidence that the Commerce Clause means anything else.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Relating to its use in the Constitution:
One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government.

With the exception of "autonomous," that's pretty much the definition. Problem is, if they're autonomous, they can't be under a sovereign government. And the United States are not under a sovereign in all respects--they are co-equal, and are inferior only in those matters upon which the federal government can constitutionally and does legislate on (like interstate commerce).

Which I think is why "more or less" preceedes it.

According to you state is anyone within the borders of the US.

I said no such thing. A state is a political entity. A person cannot be a state. What my whole point has been, which you have just bastardized, is that the phrase "among the several States" in Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3 does not mean the federal government can only regulate the states

Since that is what it says, if the feds can regulate private commerce, then private commerce has to be part of "state".

(the political bodies known as states). The commerce clause gives only the federal government to regulate commerce taking place among the states,

Yes, "among the states" not among the citizens of the states.

Nowhere have I given "state" the definition you wish to attach to my name.

Not verbaitm, but that is the only way to apply the word "state" to mean private business.

where mine has always been that "among the several States" as a phrase means commerce taking place by entities in those states. States are not the commercial actors to which the clause was aimed.

My argunemt is that if that, in fact, was the intent, they would have said so, as they did in the rest of the Constitution.

But there is no reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause which prevents the federal government from regulating interstate commerce among private businesses.

Only if you consider a literal reading unreasonable. If that were the case, there is absolutely no reason to have the Constitution.

There is zero evidence that the Commerce Clause means anything else.

If you ignore the text of the clause, you are correct.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Fine. I'm done.

If you want to continue this farcical reading that is supported by nobody, go ahead. But you won't get very far, if anywhere, in the courts or in the government.

Swim your uphill stream alone.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Fine. I'm done.

If you want to continue this farcical reading that is supported by nobody, go ahead. But you won't get very far, if anywhere, in the courts or in the government.

I never said I was taking it to court. They already determined they would not obey the Constitution on this. Just like the war on innocent people that choose a different intoxicating substance than those approved by congress.

The real problem is that almost no one bothers to read the Constitution before thinking up these crap laws. This discussion would not exist if Congress did their sworn duty!