INTERSTATE COMMERCE

 The NYT article is so much BS even though it is, of course, intellectual BS.  First, the Commerce Clause is possibly one of the most misunderstood parts of the Constitution.  In the 18th Century, much of the interstate commerce, like today, was conducted by third party carriers carrying merchandise between states for a seller and a buyer from one Union State to another.  Think of UPS or Fedex as examples.  Each is a three party contract with the carrier traveling between two Union States.  The problem the founders were addressing was the case where the goods were delivered and the buyer failed to pay the seller for the goods delivered or the goods were defective, etc.   Now you have a cross jurisdictional tort claim with little or no remedy.  The term “Regulate” means to “make regular,” so in this case, without the difficulty of the cross jurisdictional problem, i.e., the transaction occurred within one of the Union States, the regular process would be to for the grieved party to file a claim of damages in one of the Union State Courts within his jurisdiction.  The Commerce Clause simply provides that Congress was given the power to legislate a remedy for the above circumstances and it did so by providing an administrative court as a Federal District Court to provide a remedy for the grieved party.  [1]  This notion that Congress was given the power to set prices and decide what can and cannot be delivered and/or to give the federal government power over any act or action that substantially affects “interstate commerce” is simply a BS power grab to turn the Federal Government into a European style Central Government. 

 One should take note that this was one of the major fears of the Founders and to suggest that the Commerce Clause was a vehicle to extend federal power is not only preposterous, it borders on criminal treason by suggesting that the federal government can now invade, occupy, and control any and all activities occurring within Union State lands simply because products situated there were the result of transactions occurring across Union State boundaries.  The combined acts of invading, occupying, and controlling what occurs within the jurisdiction of another sovereign is the basic objectives of war thus satisfying the Constitutional conditions necessary to constitute Treason.

 Federal jurisdiction, in general, is not well understood even by most professionals.   For those who might be interested in acquiring a general understanding of federal jurisdiction there’s an article titled “Dual Sovereignty” at poorclydesalmamac.info fully laying out the Supreme Court’s major opinions on the Constitutional limits of federal (Congress’s) jurisdiction.   In another article there titled “Gun Control” one can observe how the authors of federal legislation obfuscate the jurisdiction by redefining terms such as “interstate commerce” and  “State.”  The article analyzes Title 18 Section 921 to show how the statute, in actual fact, limits the authority of the federal government to federal territory but allows the casual observer to believe it is also applicable in the Union States.  In observing the definition of the term “State” take particular note of the Supreme Court’s convention for definitions in that what is included is meant to be included and what is excluded (not included) is meant to be excluded

 In my upcoming book The Reformation of Union State Sovereignty the article Dual Sovereignty is included in the appendix.  It is also included here.



[1] This is covered in greater detail in the section titled Diversity of Citizenship in the Article titled Cooperative Federalism which is exactly what a grieved party is faced with using Interstate Commerce to buy and sell goods.

Leave a Reply