The commerce clause, and the necessary and proper (or "elastic") clause

[Rudy Canoza]

Slimy sophists combine these two in pursuit of their goal of unlimited
national government, in subversion of the Constitution. There are
thousands of instances of it, of which Wickard v. Filburn is only one of
the most infamous.

The shitty, text-torturing argument is that, in pursuing its
constitutionally provided authority to regulate interstate commerce, it was
"necessary and proper" for the federal government to forbid a farmer from
producing something on his own property and using it as an input in the
course of producing the output he intended to sell. This clearly has
nothing to do with the federal government's proper role in regulating
interstate commerce. Regulating the commerce does not included mandating
that it occur. If private parties are engaged in interstate commerce, the
federal government is given the power to regulate it. If private parties
are not engaged in interstate commerce, the Constitution does not give the
federal government the power to compel them to do so. But that's precisely
what Wickard v. Filburn did.

It is beyond obvious that the statist/collectivists have misused the
commerce and necessary and proper clauses to attain goals having nothing to
do with a delegated power in the Constitution. That is bad and wrong.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 7/18/2019 12:44 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Slimy sophists combine these two in pursuit of their goal of unlimited
> national government, in subversion of the Constitution.  There are
> thousands of instances of it, of which Wickard v. Filburn is only one of
> the most infamous.
>
> The shitty, text-torturing argument is that, in pursuing its
> constitutionally provided authority to regulate interstate commerce, it
> was "necessary and proper" for the federal government to forbid a farmer
> from producing something on his own property and using it as an input in
> the course of producing the output he intended to sell.  This clearly
> has nothing to do with the federal government's proper role in
> regulating interstate commerce.  Regulating the commerce does not
> included mandating that it occur.

In the Obamacare case, the Court held that the Commerce Clause does not
permit Congress to require someone into commerce who is not already
engaging in economic activity.

[Rudy Canoza]

So because I buy a haircut from a local barber, I am "engaging in economic
activity" - purely local - and therefore the the government can "tax" me
for not engaging in the commerce of buying health insurance.

That's nothing but slimy sophistry. Fuck off.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

No. The power to tax and spend is separate from the Commerce Clause
power and does not depend on whether you are engaging in economic activity.

[Cloud Hobbit]

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Wikipedia › wiki › Commerce_Clause
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia


The commerce clause only applies to INTERSTATE commerce, foreign nations and the Indian tribes.
Nowhere else.

Nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to force you to buy something.

[Rudy Canoza]

What is the justification for the tax? It is that people aren't engaging
in commerce (in which they don't wish to engage.) No different from
Filburn. Filburn didn't wish to engage in commerce to feed his livestock -
he wanted to grow feed himself. The fact he was engaged in *different*
commerce doesn't give the government the power to force him into still
other commerce.

The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are terrible for
the same reasons. Both depend on torturing the language of the
Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Filburn wasn't required to engage in commerce. He was fined for
exceeding his quota of harvested wheat.

> The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are terrible for
> the same reasons.  Both depend on torturing the language of the
> Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.

What language of the Constitution was tortured in the Obamacare case?

[Rudy Canoza]

Cut the bullshit, you slimy Jew sophist. He was required to engage in
commerce in order to operate his farm and feed his livestock. The point of
the law was to force farmers like him to engage in commerce.

>> The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are terrible for
>> the same reasons.  Both depend on torturing the language of the
>> Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.
>
> What language of the Constitution was tortured in the Obamacare case?

Calling a fine for failing to engage in commerce a "tax."

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The law that limited how much he could harvest forced him to engage in
commerce? WTF?

>>> The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are terrible
>>> for the same reasons.  Both depend on torturing the language of the
>>> Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.
>>
>> What language of the Constitution was tortured in the Obamacare case?
>
> Calling a fine for failing to engage in commerce a "tax."

The language is completely different than the language you think was
tortured in Wickard. Other than there was some language you think was
tortured, there is no parallel between the two cases.

[Rudy Canoza]

Yes, you fucking slimy Jew sophist it did - it forced him into engaging in
commerce if he wanted to feed his fucking livestock.

>>>> The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are terrible
>>>> for the same reasons.  Both depend on torturing the language of the
>>>> Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.
>>>
>>> What language of the Constitution was tortured in the Obamacare case?
>>
>> Calling a fine for failing to engage in commerce a "tax."
>
> The language is completely different than the language you think was
> tortured in Wickard.

Language was tortured, and common sense and the intent of the founders
abandoned, in both cases. The *nature* and *goal* of the torturing - to
achieve illegitimate and unconstitutional augmentation of government power
- was the same in both cases, and in all the other commerce clause and
necessary-and-proper clause tortures. The goal has always been to augment
federal power beyond what the Constitution allows.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The law allowed him to feed his livestock without engaging in commerce.

>>>>> The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are
>>>>> terrible for the same reasons.  Both depend on torturing the
>>>>> language of the Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.
>>>>
>>>> What language of the Constitution was tortured in the Obamacare case?
>>>
>>> Calling a fine for failing to engage in commerce a "tax."
>>
>> The language is completely different than the language you think was
>> tortured in Wickard.
>
> Language was tortured, and common sense and the intent of the founders
> abandoned, in both cases.  The *nature* and *goal* of the torturing - to
> achieve illegitimate and unconstitutional augmentation of government
> power - was the same in both cases, and in all the other commerce clause
> and necessary-and-proper clause tortures.  The goal has always been to
> augment federal power beyond what the Constitution allows.

Obamacare wasn't upheld based on either the Commerce or N&P clauses.
That's why in terms of Constitutional doctrine, the two cases have very
little in common.

[Rudy Canoza]

That's a lie. It did not.

>>>>>> The decisions - Wickard v. Filburn and Obamacare - both are terrible
>>>>>> for the same reasons.  Both depend on torturing the language of the
>>>>>> Constitution to make it mean things it doesn't mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> What language of the Constitution was tortured in the Obamacare case?
>>>>
>>>> Calling a fine for failing to engage in commerce a "tax."
>>>
>>> The language is completely different than the language you think was
>>> tortured in Wickard.
>>
>> Language was tortured, and common sense and the intent of the founders
>> abandoned, in both cases.  The *nature* and *goal* of the torturing - to
>> achieve illegitimate and unconstitutional augmentation of government
>> power - was the same in both cases, and in all the other commerce clause
>> and necessary-and-proper clause tortures.  The goal has always been to
>> augment federal power beyond what the Constitution allows.
>
> Obamacare wasn't upheld based on either the Commerce or N&P clauses.

It was upheld on a fictional interpretation of "tax." The "tax" was in
fact a fine, and the fine was levied for failure to engage in commerce. It
was a classic slimy Jew sophistry that the fine was a "tax." Forget that
Roberts is a Catholic. He was educated at law school by slimy Jew
sophists, and slimy Jew sophist lawyers were defending the law. It's slimy
Jew sophistry from start to finish.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The commerce clause does NOT allow the U.S. government to force someone
into commerce so that they can then be regulated by the U.S. Government
under the commerce clause.

You didn't even get it correct...

"The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely
because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Justice
Roberts. "Such a law *cannot be sustained under a clause* *authorizing*
*Congress to 'regulate Commerce* .'"

The law would be allowing Congress (the Government) to regulate you
without any delegated power since you didn't engage in commerce and you
are then being regulated without the government having the delegated
power to tell you what to do when you are NOT engaging in interstate
commerce, as they illegally force you into commerce so they can then use
the actual delegated power to legally force you to do as they say. Each
act of commerce is a separate instance of commerce. A business license
is to legally engage in commerce NOT an act of commerce. And there is NO
interstate commerce license. If there were then you wouldn't need one to
grow your own wheat or Marijuana. Only to sell it across a State line.

The logic of the Liberals is flawed as usual, Democrats always want to
use force and will even use illegal force, because they love
authoritarian government and they hate America and the U.S. Constitution.

In essence the commerce clause only allows them to regulate you after
you willingly enter into interstate commerce. It never gives the power
to mandate commerce. Even when the government steals your property it's
NOT commerce it's eminent domain, and is a court ordered theft that
requires compensation. And it's a specific power delegated in the
Constitution, while there is no delegated power to force people into
Commerce.

--
That's Karma

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It seems that th government says they taxed you and charged a fine for
NOT paying the tax and the tax was having insurance.

But then they also said that what made it a tax was the fine for NOT
complying with the tax.

SO which was the tax, the Obama care was teh tax or the fine for NOT
buying ObamaCare was the tax?
--
That's Karma

[Steve is offline now]

Wrong. He had to purchase to meet his requirement.

[Steve is offline now]

Which he grew to feed his livestock. With the limits imposed, he
either had to buy feed or reduce his herd.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 7/19/2019 2:00 AM, Steve is offline now wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:37:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/2019 7:21 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

{snip}

>>> What is the justification for the tax?  It is that people aren't
>>> engaging in commerce (in which they don't wish to engage.)  No different
>>> from Filburn.  Filburn didn't wish to engage in commerce to feed his
>>> livestock - he wanted to grow feed himself.  The fact he was engaged in
>>> *different* commerce doesn't give the government the power to force him
>>> into still other commerce.
>>
>> Filburn wasn't required to engage in commerce. He was fined for
>> exceeding his quota of harvested wheat.
>
> Which he grew to feed his livestock. With the limits imposed, he
> either had to buy feed or reduce his herd.

Thanks for the explanation. I had misinterpreted what Rudy was trying
to say. I thought he was claiming the law *directly* ordered Filburn to
engage in commerce, which is not true. It is however true that the
effect of the law was to require Fliburn to buy feed (engage in
commerce) or reduce his heard.

Nonetheless, Filburn was engaging in economic activity to feed his herd
(production is economic activity). As such, the holding in Obamacare
that the government cannot require people to enter commerce who aren't
previously engaging in economic activity in no way impacts the holding
in Wickard.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/19/2019 7:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 7/19/2019 2:00 AM, Steve is offline now wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:37:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/18/2019 7:21 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
>>>> What is the justification for the tax?  It is that people aren't
>>>> engaging in commerce (in which they don't wish to engage.)  No different
>>>> from Filburn.  Filburn didn't wish to engage in commerce to feed his
>>>> livestock - he wanted to grow feed himself.  The fact he was engaged in
>>>> *different* commerce doesn't give the government the power to force him
>>>> into still other commerce.
>>>
>>> Filburn wasn't required to engage in commerce.  He was fined for
>>> exceeding his quota of harvested wheat.
>>
>> Which he grew to feed his livestock. With the limits imposed, he
>> either had to buy feed or reduce his herd.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.  I had misinterpreted what Rudy was trying to
> say.  I thought he was claiming the law *directly* ordered Filburn to
> engage in commerce, which is not true.  It is however true that the effect
> of the law was to require Fliburn to buy feed (engage in commerce) or
> reduce his heard.
>
> Nonetheless, Filburn was engaging in economic activity to feed his herd
> (production is economic activity).

That's patently false. It is *only* economic activity if it enters the
exchange economy. The eggs, milk and meat he produced were intended to
enter the exchange economy, but the grain never did. The government did
not apply the wheat quota law to Filburn due to any aspect of the intended
consumption of his output. If Filburn and his family had consumed all the
eggs, dairy products and meat themselves, the wheat quota law still would
have been applied to him.

Your sophistry is getting sloppier and shittier by the post.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/19/19 10:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 7/19/2019 2:00 AM, Steve is offline now wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:37:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/18/2019 7:21 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
>>>> What is the justification for the tax?  It is that people aren't
>>>> engaging in commerce (in which they don't wish to engage.)  No
>>>> different
>>>> from Filburn.  Filburn didn't wish to engage in commerce to feed his
>>>> livestock - he wanted to grow feed himself.  The fact he was engaged in
>>>> *different* commerce doesn't give the government the power to force him
>>>> into still other commerce.
>>>
>>> Filburn wasn't required to engage in commerce.  He was fined for
>>> exceeding his quota of harvested wheat.
>>
>> Which he grew to feed his livestock. With the limits imposed, he
>> either had to buy feed or reduce his herd.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.  I had misinterpreted what Rudy was trying
> to say.  I thought he was claiming the law *directly* ordered Filburn to
> engage in commerce, which is not true.  It is however true that the
> effect of the law was to require Fliburn to buy feed (engage in
> commerce) or reduce his heard.

Reducing the herd is forcing him into commerce, unless he burned them on
the BBQ and ate them.... So they were forcing him to buy cattle feed or
sell cattle, either way it's commerce. Growing the wheat was NOT
interstate commerce if he wasn't selling the wheat across a state line
and had not sold it instate so it hadn't become commerce of any kind.

That GRAIN might be destroyed by hail or bugs or disease.... So there
is no evidence that it would ever make it to any interstate commerce
ever....

It's still using the commerce clause to force him into commerce (selling
cows or buying wheat) so that they can then call the wheat and the cows
commerce (but it may be that he would still sell the CATTLE LOCALLY and
NOT interstate), while the cows could also be pets and the wheat could
be pet food for personal pet use. Or the laws/regulations may be
repealed by the time he sells the cattle.

>
> Nonetheless, Filburn was engaging in economic activity to feed his herd
> (production is economic activity).

NO... buying wheat across state lines to feed the cattle would be
interstate commerce. Since he wasn't buying feed across a State line it
was NOT interstate commerce. what they wanted him to do was buy wheat
from some one where they had the power to regulate it.... by growing his
own he could NOT be regulated and they didn't want unregulated wheat
being produced for personal use. But the commerce clause didn't allow
for banning production of wheat that was used inside the State where is
was grown.


REGULATING economic activity inside a State is NOT listed as part of
the powers delegated in the commerce clause, it has a qualifier that
limits the regulation, that qualifier is *INTERSTATE COMMERCE* and
growing wheat for your own use is neither an INTERSTATE activity nor is
it commerce. It may be economic but that would require a VAT which is a
"Value Added Tax" to have any control over feeding your own seeds that
you grew to your own cattle.

We have NO VAT taxes to cover personal activity, all we have is income
tax that looks at the final income you produced from what ever source
derived. The actual source is NOT taxed separately like a VAT tax would
do.


It might also be a hobby or research or personal stock for a disaster or
lean year when the grain would not be limited for sale across state
lines so it would be legal to store it for a lean year and then sell it
by engaging in interstate commerce. And it wasn't interstate
commerce... until he engaged in the actual commerce across the State
lines.

>  As such, the holding in Obamacare
> that the government cannot require people to enter commerce who aren't
> previously engaging in economic activity in no way impacts the holding
> in Wickard.

Sure it does. It says that, someone who is growing food for his own use
inside the State is not conducting "interstate" commerce. They have yet
to fatten the cows and the business may or may NOT sell all the cows
inside the state's borders.

With NO "INTERSTATE" commerce taking place, there is no DELEGATED
Commerce POWER to use to force them to buy grain or sell cows until the
actual actions that are commerce are taking place, the fact someone
might sell beef and engage in interstate commerce is NOT in fact actual
interstate commerce until it is happening.

Raising grain is NOT interstate commerce... selling it across State
lines is interstate commerce. SO the *NECESSARY AnD PROPER* comes into
play where they should have passed a law necessary and proper that the
*State has a limit on grain they could market across state lines* NOT on
the farmer.... they should have also had limitations on the BREAD that
could be sold across States lines and the Cattle that could be sold
across state lines but they had ZERO DELEGATED POWER to limit the
FARMERS in State on PRODUCTION to try to limit NATIONAL production.

The Federal government isn't meant to be involved in our low level daily
lives and business, Taxes and daily laws are for State and local and the
Federal Government should tax and regulate on a NATIONAL SCALE which is
to say tax at the borders NOT the interior of States or our personal lives.






Just as I said about the county clerk who the Federal Courts went after
for NOT handing out gay wedding licenses. The Feds were obliged to go
after the State laws of the State that she worked for NOT directly after
the State GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE following Federally annulled State laws.

The State must remove and replace the laws for the State workers to
follow. Instead the Federal Government assumed the roll of making State
laws and arresting State employees who didn't comply with a Federal
violation of State jurisdiction. A federal crime because they have no
delegated power at the Federal Level to make State law. The same as the
Federal Government has no power delegated to force a farmer to buy wheat
rather than grow their own for their own use inside a States borders and
not having been sold outside the State.

This is typical Liberalism where they make up laws in the courts that
trample the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

Democrats support doing this because they hate America and the Constitution.

--
That's Karma

[Kevrob]

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 12:54:52 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> Just as I said about the county clerk who the Federal Courts went after
> for NOT handing out gay wedding licenses. The Feds were obliged to go
> after the State laws of the State that she worked for NOT directly after
> the State GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE following Federally annulled State laws.

SCOTUS used 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection arguments.
Those would only apply in an interstate commerce case if some people
were being regulated and others weren't, as in only African-Americans
being regulated, or only naturalized citizens, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>> As such, the holding in Obamacare that the government cannot require
>> people to enter commerce who aren't previously engaging in economic
>> activity in no way impacts the holding in Wickard.

What's worse is that they're trying to force you into "INTERSTATE"
commerce since they can't force you into your STATES OWN COMMERCE. That
would be outside their United States jurisdiction.

So not only are they trying to force you to buy something like ObamaCare
insurance or wheat but you're being forced to buy it from outside your
State.

Because the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over commerce that's
NOT interstate.

Oh, the hypocrisy... that they won't even limit their forcing you into
commerce to being just forcing you into *INTERSTATE* *COMMERCE* as the
commerce clause limits the Congress to only regulate INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. So it's unconstitutional for congress to force you into
commerce and *interstate* commerce....

--
That's Karma

[Josh Rosenbluth]

If every person in America did likewise, it would have a substantial
impact on the market. That makes it economic activity.

[Rudy Canoza]

It is not economic activity that Congress can regulate, and it is not
economic activity that economists measure. Congress can't forbid a woman
from making her own clothing, even if all women were to do it.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Under existing precedent, Congress can do that.

[Rudy Canoza]

False.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

How can Congress forbid a farmer from making his own feed without also
forbidding a woman to make her own clothing?

[Ted]

Of course Rudy's right, Josh, it isn't regarded as the same sort of thing
at all.