Barak Obama

May 20, 2009, 06:09 PM

announcer

Defined..Domestic: of concern to or concerning the internal affairs of a nation.

Defined..Commerce: transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities (goods and services).

Domestic Commerce: Conducting transactions that concern the internal affairs of a nation.

May 20, 2009, 06:09 PM

Michael Beard

quote:
The Commerce Clause in particular grants the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, Indian tribes, and other nations.

The Supreme Court has vastly stretched the reach of the commerce clause over the years.

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/abuse.html

May 20, 2009, 06:10 PM

announcer

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 20, 2009, 06:15 PM

announcer

The only point I'm making is that so many have said it is Unconstitutional for the feds to intervene in business. The clause may have been stretched by the wheat farmer...but the clause remains none he less.

May 20, 2009, 06:20 PM

announcer

Having read the link you supplied...it gives us a very telling piece of information....He paid the fine for the violation.

May 20, 2009, 06:22 PM

Mike English

Thus, the original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states.

Heres what their job is. So states dont go to war over trasde with each other.

May 20, 2009, 06:24 PM

Mike English

quote:
The only point I'm making is that so many have said it is Unconstitutional for the feds to intervene in business

Its called price control and if the goverment stayed out of it prices would be differnt. At least fair market value not what goverment control sets.

May 20, 2009, 06:29 PM

<Jeremy J.>

quote:
Originally posted by Mike English:
quote:
The only point I'm making is that so many have said it is Unconstitutional for the feds to intervene in business

Its called price control and if the goverment stayed out of it prices would be differnt. At least fair market value not what goverment control sets.

If corporatism hadn't reigned supreme for the last 8 years, maybe enough small businesses would still be alive so there would be a reason for fair market values. Now, we have less and less choices where we buy our products and are sometimes forced to buy from major corporations. That's not price control?

May 20, 2009, 06:32 PM

announcer

But does the Commerce Clause clear up the idea of it being unconstitutional for the federal government to step in?

Unless I'm reading something totally different this should clear it up.

I'm not saying it's right ...or that I agree with it....but for government to step in is within it's Constitutional authority...do you agree?

May 20, 2009, 06:44 PM

announcer

Come on ...say it...it won't hurt very long!

May 20, 2009, 07:00 PM

muggs

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy J.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike English:
quote:
The only point I'm making is that so many have said it is Unconstitutional for the feds to intervene in business

Its called price control and if the goverment stayed out of it prices would be differnt. At least fair market value not what goverment control sets.

If corporatism hadn't reigned supreme for the last 8 years, maybe enough small businesses would still be alive so there would be a reason for fair market values. Now, we have less and less choices where we buy our products and are sometimes forced to buy from major corporations. That's not price control?

Actually this would be survival of the fittest. Large corporations (the enemy by lib definition) can withstand tougher times far longer than small operations. Deeper pockets, more assets to cash out, allow a longer period before close.

Adding more government, via taxes or regulations hits the smaller busness much harder. I have dealt with many parts of the EPA and other regulatory agencies. All could be significantly streamlined. Those (companies)that abuse, usually do so to stay afloat. The percentage that abuse as standard practice usually get busted by something else first.

Jobs are going away because cost/price is out of whack. You cannot blame corporations for trying to stay in business.

The commerce clause is to keep interstate commerce clean and fair. It was never intended to give power to step in and operate a company. Have to add, this is my opinion.

Announcer is beginning to sound like a genuine socialist.

May 20, 2009, 07:10 PM

<Jeremy J.>

quote:
Originally posted by muggs:

Actually this would be survival of the fittest. Large corporations (the enemy by lib definition) can withstand tougher times far longer than small operations. Deeper pockets, more assets to cash out, allow a longer period before close.

Adding more government, via taxes or regulations hits the smaller busness much harder. I have dealt with many parts of the EPA and other regulatory agencies. All could be significantly streamlined. Those (companies)that abuse, usually do so to stay afloat. The percentage that abuse as standard practice usually get busted by something else first.

Jobs are going away because cost/price is out of whack. You cannot blame corporations for trying to stay in business.

The commerce clause is to keep interstate commerce clean and fair. It was never intended to give power to step in and operate a company. Have to add, this is my opinion.

Announcer is beginning to sound like a genuine socialist.

So why is it they all need bailouts?

May 20, 2009, 07:13 PM

announcer

If the shoe fits...but so far it doesn't.

Why can't I get somebody to the right...of conservative tendencies to admit that:

"Today, this clause protects businesses and consumers alike. The state and federal government have concurrent power to regulate domestic commerce."

This states PLAINLY that it is Constitutionally within the government's jurisdiction to REGULATE DOMESTIC COMMERCE!

I know it's a bitter pill for you folks to swallow...but MAN UP!!!

May 20, 2009, 07:16 PM

<Jeremy J.>

Now that small businesses have died because of corporatism we are stuck purchasing our goods from major corporate chains. It's getting to the point where only one major chain is left for each industry. Pretty soon we'll be purchasing all of our needed goods from one corporation. Sounds like communist Russia doesn't it? All because of corporatism. How's that for socialism?

May 20, 2009, 07:26 PM

announcer

Your silence SCREAMS "I know he's right...but hell will freeze over before I admit it."

May 20, 2009, 07:27 PM

Mike English

quote:
So why is it they all need bailouts?

Because the goverment will give it to them. And no, I'm not saying they should.

May 20, 2009, 07:48 PM

Bill Koski

The illegal aliens birth certificate???????????????????????
Another internet alteration, the terrorist abetting liar has never presented a legitimate birth certificate! They tried with a poor counterfeit one for a sister of his that had been altered!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 20, 2009, 08:24 PM

Bill Koski

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Koski:
SMACKDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As his own congress makes the illegal alien a liar one more time, after this many lies what's one more!
No money for closing Gitmo AND NO prisoners coming to the US under any circumstances, a direct slap to the illegal alien and his ethics bereft Attorney General!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looks as though even some of the out-in-leftfield socialist donkies are beginning to realize all of this anti-American crap is going to be their ticket to civilian life if they surrender to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, RUSH resigned as titular head of the Republican party and handed the reins to weasel powell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!