Saturday, August 02, 2008

Presidential candidates agree to trash Constitution!

See: House passes bill to regulate tobacco

WASHINGTON -The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being.

Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday.

The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation." (my emphasis)


Well, if you thought either of our two presidential candidates intend to abide by their oath of office to support and defend the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, the above is more evidence they are both tyrannical control freaks of the worst kind, and very much part of our Washington Establishment’s control freak crowd. Both Obama and McCain support the above proposed and tyrannical seizure of power and intend to have Congress enter the states and exercise a power not authorized by our written Constitution.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R.1108) states in part:

" b Registration by Owners and Operators- On or before December 31 of each year every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person."

And the question is, by what constitutional authority does Congress have power to enter a state to regulate the manufacture of tobacco products therein and compel a person who manufactures tobacco products in a particular state to register with the federal government?

Of course, our control freak crowd on Capitol Hill will claim such power is found under Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution ___ that Congress has been granted power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

So, let us take a look at the documented intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among [not within] the states. An immediate clue to those intentions is surprisingly discovered in another part of our Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9:

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”(my emphasis)

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers with regard to commerce, which was to insure free trade [movement of goods] among the states.

And, in Federalist Paper No. 42 Madison articulates the very reasons for which the power to regulate commerce ought to be placed under the national legislature‘s powers:

“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. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

The power to regulate commerce "among" [not within] the states was primarily intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as those goods passed through its borders. There was never any intention expressed to allow Congress to enter a state to regulate industry, the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use and consumption, or regulate the production processes carried on within the various state borders.

Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight, a co-exercised power with the states in a specific and narrowly defined area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress."
____ Article 1, Section 10

The documented truth is, Congress is not authorized by our written Constitution, nor was there any intentions expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, to authorize Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use, or consumption, etc., of any products! As a matter of fact, Congress’s limited powers in this particular area [regulation of commerce among the states] was specifically intended to prevent such interferences of free trade among the states, and which our control freak crowd now attempts to engage in by attaching new meaning to the word "commerce" and then regulating the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products.

Aside from the above documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, there is still more glaring evidence, also found in the wording of our Constitution, to show our control freak crowd is proposing to allow Congress to act tyrannically and without Constitutional authority!

In 1920 Congress was granted power to enter the states to prohibit the “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” see the 18th Amendment. Under section 2, the power to allow Congress to enter the states was intentionally granted by the states to the federal government by the following words:

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But this power granted to Congress to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, or transportation of a product was withdraw by the 21st Amendment and by the following words:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

And thus, such regulatory power within the various states evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment!

In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and adopt regulatory policing powers as the people in each state feel is in their own state’s best interests was intentionally taken back and emphasized by section two of the 21st Amendment!

The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers within the various states in violation of our written Constitution which blatantly violates federalism, our Constitution’s plan?

I would say the seizure of such power, aside from the obvious left wing control freak mindset which inspires it, also allows the creation of a substantial number of political plum jobs [federal regulators, administrators, etc.] which are awarded to the friends of big government and loyal to Congress ___ such jobs having excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical and dental plans and a very generous retirement plan, all of with Mary and Joe Sixpack, living South Carolina, can only dream of having but will be taxed to finance! See:WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

One final note with regard to the word “commerce”. As used by our founding fathers during the framing and ratification process it is found to be synonymous with “trade”, and had nothing to do with the regulation of industry, the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or the production processes carried on within the various state borders.

The term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers meant nothing more than the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B, and, Congress was given power to insure the free passage of goods and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through, which I documented above. But just for the readers personal benefit, I will provide the following examples of the word "commerce" being used during the ratification process of our Constitution which gives documented insight to its constitutional meaning.



“As to commerce, it is well known that the different states”
PAGE 57:

now pursue different systems of duties in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from state to state. This is contrary to the policy of every nation on earth. Some nations have no other commerce. The great and flourishing empire of China has but little commerce beyond her own territories; and no country is better circumstanced than we for an exclusive traffic from state to state; yet even in this we are rivalled by foreigners--by those foreigners to whom we are the least indebted. A vessel from Roseway or Halifax finds as hearty a welcome with its fish and whalebone at the southern ports, as though it was built, navigated, and freighted from Salem or Boston. And this must be the case, until we have laws comprehending and embracing alike all the states in the Union.

But it is not only our coasting trade--our whole commerce is going to ruin. Congress has not had power to make even a trade law, which shall confine the importation of foreign goods to the ships of the producing or consuming country”



These are some of the consequences, certain and infallible, that will flow from the denial of that power to Congress. Shall we then, we of this state, who are so much interested in this matter, deny them that power -- a power so essential to our political happiness?

But if we attend to our trade, as it is at present, we shall find that the miserable state of it is owing to a like want of power in Congress. Other nations prohibit our vessels from entering their ports, or lay heavy duties on our exports carried thither; and we have no retaliating or regulating power over their vessels and exports, to prevent it. Hence a decrease of our commerce and navigation, and the duties and revenue arising from them. Hence an insufficient demand for the produce of our lands, and the consequent discouragement of agriculture. Hence the inability to pay debts, and particularly taxes, which by that decrease are enhanced. And hence, as the necessary result of all these, the emigration of our inhabitants. If it be asked, How are these evils, and others that might be mentioned, to be remedied? the answer is short -- By giving Congress adequate and proper power. Whether such power be given by the proposed Constitution, it is left with the Conventions from the several states, and with us, who compose one of them, to determine.

Now, where does one get the notion that the word “commerce” as used in our Constitution, is synonymous with “industry” or “manufacturing” etc., which would lead to the following absurd conclusion ? ___ that Congress has power

“To regulate industry with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes“ which would follow if the assertion were correct. [see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3]


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 during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, 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.