Wonder if we can get someone at FOX to answer the following questions after considering what our Constitution‘s Tenth Amendment states?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

What wording in our federal Constitution is intended to grant power to Congress to regulate or require utility companies within the various united states to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy efficiency savings and renewable energy?

What wording in our federal Constitution is intended to grant power to Congress to establish and enforce standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for residences; or appropriate money from our federal treasury to pay rebates to low-income households residing in pre-1976 manufactured homes in purchasing new Energy Star qualified manufactured homes?

What wording in our federal Constitution is intended to grant power to Congress to appropriate money from our federal treasury to be used to make grants to community development organizations like ACORN to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency, develop alternative, renewable, and distributed energy supplies, provide technical assistance and promote job and business opportunities for low-income residents, and increase energy conservation in low income rural and urban communities?

What wording in our federal Constitution is intended to grant power to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or any Administrator, to make public policy, set standards, and make regulations, all of which are a legislative function in our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government“?


JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

The only guy at Fox with enough sense to answer is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. The rest of them just read the teleprompter and rush off to hair and makeup for a refresh during commercials.

(07-01-2009 08:54 AM)NewFederalist Wrote:  The only guy at Fox with enough sense to answer is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. The rest of them just read the teleprompter and rush off to hair and makeup for a refresh during commercials.

Judge Napolitano has repeatedly stated that the meaning of commerce within our Constitution is “to make regular”.

I kind of remember while doing a major research paper at the University of Maryland’s McKeldren library and spending countless hours researching historical documentation during the founding of our nation that the word “commerce”, as used by our founding fathers, was synonymous with “trade” or “traffic” and as such, the power granted to Congress to regulate it was a power allowing Congress to be a sort of traffic cop to insure the free movement of goods among the states and preclude one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed among the states, and, the power didn’t have any different bearing if such goods moved on land or water, on horseback or boat …. Congress’s job was to be a traffic cop, nothing more, and prevent the interruption of goods as the passed among the states.

The delegated power over commerce as intended by our founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with a policing power over the manufacture and marketing of goods, wares, or merchandise, nor a policing power over the cultivation of agricultural products or their use. As a mater of fact it is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be surrendering a policing power to Congress allowing Congress to henceforth enter the states to dictate the regulation of a state’s manufacturing industry, or regulate its agricultural industry, or was given the dictatorial powers as described in “Cap and Trade”.

Regards,

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

There is none.

More of Obama's NWO Globalist Agenda.

(07-01-2009 11:57 PM)Volitzer Wrote:  There is none.

More of Obama's NWO Globalist Agenda.

Why is the Leadership of the Republican Party not in the media 24/7 objecting to the unconstitutional and tyrannical assumptions of power?


JWK

(07-02-2009 07:11 AM)johnwk Wrote:  Why is the Leadership of the Republican Party not in the media 24/7 objecting to the unconstitutional and tyrannical assumptions of power?


JWK

I realize your question is rhetorical but several "reasons" come to mind.
First, the GOP makes the same assumptions as the Democrats so they don't see any constitutional basis to complain. Second, even if they did what media would give coverage to such a story? Third, leadership and Republican Party don't belong in the same sentence. Fourth, any "leadership" in the GOP is more concerned at the moment with U.S. Senators and Governors who seem to act like 16 year olds and can't restrain their sex urges (with all due apologies to 16 year olds!).

(07-02-2009 08:45 AM)NewFederalist Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 07:11 AM)johnwk Wrote:  Why is the Leadership of the Republican Party not in the media 24/7 objecting to the unconstitutional and tyrannical assumptions of power?


JWK

I realize your question is rhetorical but several "reasons" come to mind.
First, the GOP makes the same assumptions as the Democrats so they don't see any constitutional basis to complain.

The Republican Party Leadership could have started in court with Obama’s signing of the
H.R. 1256: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Fact is, Congress has not been granted a power by our Constitution to regulate the manufacture and marketing of tobacco products, or any products, and, every Republican who voted in favor of the bill has participated in another assault upon our constitutionally limited system of government and sided with those in Washington who work feverishly, day and night, to create a federal government without defined and limited powers, and, they mock the very reason for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!

BTW, even our Supreme Court knows the definition of commerce as used in our Constitution does not include a power for Obama and Co. to regulate manufacturing, but is limited to regulating the traffic of goods among the states, just like a traffic cop!

Quote:See 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 361 (4th ed. 1773) (defining commerce as Intercour[s]e; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick); N. Bailey, An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (26th ed. 1789) (trade or traffic); T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796) (Exchange of one thing for another; trade, traffick). This understanding finds support in the etymology of the word, which literally means with merchandise. See 3 Oxford English Dictionary 552 (2d ed. 1989) (com-with; merci-merchandise). In fact, when Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably. See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (discussing competitions of commerce between States resulting from state regulations of trade); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an acknowledged object of the Convention . . . that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government); Lee, Letters of a Federal Farmer No. 5, in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 319 (P. Ford ed. 1888); Smith, An Address to the People of the State of New-York, in id., at 107.

As one would expect, the term commerce was used in contradistinction to productive activities such as manufacturing and agriculture. Alexander Hamilton, for example, repeatedly treated commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing as three separate endeavors. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 36, at 224 (referring to agriculture, commerce, manufactures); id., No. 21, at 133 (distinguishing commerce, arts, and industry); id., No. 12, at 74 (asserting that commerce and agriculture have shared interests). The same distinctions were made in the state ratification conventions. See e.g., 2 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 57 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (hereinafter Debates) (T. Dawes at Massachusetts convention); id., at 336 (M. Smith at New York convention).

Moreover, interjecting a modern sense of commerce into the Constitution generates significant textual and structural problems. For example, one cannot replace commerce with a different type of enterprise, such as manufacturing. When a manufacturer produces a car, assembly cannot take place with a foreign nation or with the Indian Tribes. Parts may come from different States or other nations and hence may have been in the flow of commerce at one time, but manufacturing takes place at a discrete site. Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread labor and business has earned.

Supreme Court upholds Tenth Amendment


I think it is important to understand how our federal government’s powers have been continually expanded beyond those granted by our written Constitution. Seems to me many current expansions of federal power are achieved by Congress passing a law “implying” it has a power over a particular subject matter under one of its enumerated grants of powers, e.g., Congress pointing to its power to regulate commerce and then under this power dictating minimum wage laws within the various united States. And then, when someone wants to challenge the law some shyster lawyer fails to forcefully argue the constitutionality of the law by documenting the limited and intended purposes for which the enumerated power was granted [regulating commerce], which never included a power to enter the states to regulate the subject matter in question [earned wages]. What these shysters do is argue the tear jerking hardships imposed upon business under the law which really is irrelevant if Congress has been granted power to regulate earned wages within the various States!


When talking about Cap and Trade and Congress’s alleged power to enter the States to regulate manufacturing under its power to regulate commerce, it is interesting to study how Congress, during the early 1900’s, attempted the very same thing, but the SCOTUS refused to be a party to Congress’s attempted subjugation of our written Constitution. What I am referring to is the tear-jerking save-the-children, trample upon the Tenth Amendment, Keating-Own Child Labor Act of 1916, alleged to be constitutional under Congress‘s power to regulate commerce.

The Act was intended “to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor, and for other purposes.” But this was a grab for additional power beyond the intended purpose for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, and as such, the Child Labor law was first struck down in the Western District Court and eventually went to the SCOTUS which also found the Act to be an attempt to seize control over manufacturing within the various States and violated our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment! See: Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court, here are some highlights:

Quote:
The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the states, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the states.

Commerce 'consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities.' The making of goods and the mining of coal are not commerce, nor does the fact that these things are to be afterwards shipped, or used in interstate commerce, make their production a part thereof

If it were otherwise, all manufacture intended for interstate shipment would be brought under federal control to the practical exclusion of the authority of the states, a result certainly not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution when they vested in Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the States.

There is no power vested in Congress to require the states to exercise their police power so as to prevent possible unfair competition. Many causes may co-operate to give one state, by reason of local laws or conditions, an economic advantage over others. The commerce clause was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize such conditions

The grant of power of Congress over the subject of interstate commerce was to enable it to regulate such commerce, and not to give it authority to control the states in their exercise of the police power over local trade and manufacture.

The grant of authority over a purely federal matter was not intended to destroy the local power always existing and carefully reserved to the states in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.


In interpreting the Constitution it must never be forgotten that the nation is made up of states to which are entrusted the powers of local government. And to them and to the people the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved. The power of the states to regulate their purely internal affairs by such laws as seem wise to the local authority is inherent and has never been surrendered to the general government. To sustain this statute would not be in our judgment a recognition of the lawful exertion of congressional authority over interstate commerce, but would sanction an invasion by the federal power of the control of a matter purely local in its character, and over which no authority has been delegated to Congress in conferring the power to regulate commerce among the states.

Thus the act in a two-fold sense is repugnant to the Constitution. It not only transcends the authority delegated to Congress over commerce but also exerts a power as to a purely local matter to which the federal authority does not extend. The far reaching result of upholding the act cannot be more plainly indicated than by pointing out that if Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government be practically destroyed. For these reasons we hold that this law exceeds the constitutional authority of Congress.

The bottom line is, until the people of the united States have agreed via the prescribed method for change, Article V, and entrusted to Congress a power to enter the states to regulate a new subject matter [Cap and Trade], Congress is without authority to meddle in the matter, and to do so is to engage in tyranny and violate the very purpose for which the people have adopted a constitutionally limited system of government!

JWK


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people---Tenth Amendment

We deserve the Tyranny we are willing to live under. Obviously, we are willing to put up with it. Someone once asked me the age old question "what are you gonna do about it? Start hanging them?" I said it would be a nice start.

I asked who this person thought "them" where? He says "You know.....Them". I told this fellow that he was going to have to define who "them" was and what made "them" worthy of hanging.

It was like talking to a rock. Maybe they thought I was talking about Van Morrison's old rock band "Them".

One of my favorite movies as a kid. It still is now as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2PLls02gOU

Ray