Is regulating commerce between states the same as regulating it with foreign nations? If so,the federal minimum wage law is unconstitutional since we can’t pass a law dictating the minimum wage in france
It surely doesn’t give congress the power to go into the old age pension business (social security). Mom does the general welfare clause. Therefore social security is unconstitutional
The commerce clause has been rendered unrecognizable by power hungry federal legislatures, courts, and presidents. The clause understood based on its text doesn’t give congress power to tell businesses how much they can pay their workers or how they may manufacture goods.
Just because something moves through commerce to come in to your possession doesn't mean that it will always be in commerce.if I'm not engaged in commercial activity the possession of such item doesn't automatically make me engaged in commerce.these people use word games to try to trick you into thinking you're doing something that you're not wake up people pay attention.
Commerce is where the "government" delegated all its power to itself. Or so they think. All decisions are justified in commerce because that is just one of three duties they have been authorized to establish and run. But they still have no power over the people no matter how they choose to classify it. They seem to be somewhat confused pertaining to their duties and obligations. They have stated that the government has no obligation to the people but they are dead wrong. Their duties are to regulate commerce establish the courts and the operations for the government protection of rights and land is it. One more to create laws. Those are the only things the "government" has authority to do. And those bill of rights everyone seems to think it's their constitutional rights but they too are dead wrong. Those are specific rights we hold that they are barred from touching. The oath is to affirm that they will honor the system the people have created and swear to uphold and protect it. Every politician is guilty of abandoning their oath and should be treated as domestic terrorists.
The Supreme Court in the nineteenth and the twentieth century always upheld Congress power to regulate under the commerce power, did it? That is the silliest comment I have ever heard.
The founders were clear in documents and writings that this was a negative power not a positive power. The ability to control any and all commerce is the utter control of everything. This is absolutely in opposition to the entire letter of the whole constitution which is a document that spells out the very limited powers that the federal government does have.
@@nathantowne2055 commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services. It isn’t manufacturing, it isn’t what you pay your workers. The clause gives the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. But congress can’t pass a law dictating a minimum wage for France. Why do you think it gives congress the power to pass a minimum wage law for the United States?
Utter BS. The Federalist Papers tell us exactly what the commerce clause was meant to accomplish. How's about read that before you jack your jaw? Or... you could take a class in grammar and sentence diagraming to figure out what is meant by "Among the States". The Ogden case dealt with one state infringing on the commerce between states. The spin put on that in subsequent cases is the court amending the constitution to include objects of commerce rather than the flow of commerce between/among the states. Among the States. Among the States. Not among states and corporations. Not among persons and objects. The court amended the constitution illegally with the modern interpretations. And you went along, totally unaware.
Is regulating commerce between states the same as regulating it with foreign nations? If so,the federal minimum wage law is unconstitutional since we can’t pass a law dictating the minimum wage in france
I’m lost.
It surely doesn’t give congress the power to go into the old age pension business (social security). Mom does the general welfare clause. Therefore social security is unconstitutional
This was super helpful. Thank you so much!
The commerce clause has been rendered unrecognizable by power hungry federal legislatures, courts, and presidents.
The clause understood based on its text doesn’t give congress power to tell businesses how much they can pay their workers or how they may manufacture goods.
STILL YOUR OWN STATEMNTS ABOUT CONSTITUIONS WILL LEAD YOU GUILTY IF DAMGES OUR LIFE 89
THE PROBLEM IS THEY SPEAK BUT THEY KNEW WT THEY BEEN DOING FRAUDELY
Thanks
AKA the most abused clause in the Constitution.
Just because something moves through commerce to come in to your possession doesn't mean that it will always be in commerce.if I'm not engaged in commercial activity the possession of such item doesn't automatically make me engaged in commerce.these people use word games to try to trick you into thinking you're doing something that you're not wake up people pay attention.
ALL YOUR OWN WORK . WE DONT EVEN EXISTED . CRABS
The clause gives power regulate commerce with foreign nations. Does that mean congress can pass a minimum wage law for France?
Commerce is where the "government" delegated all its power to itself. Or so they think. All decisions are justified in commerce because that is just one of three duties they have been authorized to establish and run. But they still have no power over the people no matter how they choose to classify it. They seem to be somewhat confused pertaining to their duties and obligations. They have stated that the government has no obligation to the people but they are dead wrong. Their duties are to regulate commerce establish the courts and the operations for the government protection of rights and land is it. One more to create laws. Those are the only things the "government" has authority to do. And those bill of rights everyone seems to think it's their constitutional rights but they too are dead wrong. Those are specific rights we hold that they are barred from touching. The oath is to affirm that they will honor the system the people have created and swear to uphold and protect it. Every politician is guilty of abandoning their oath and should be treated as domestic terrorists.
The Supreme Court in the nineteenth and the twentieth century always upheld Congress power to regulate under the commerce power, did it? That is the silliest comment I have ever heard.
The founders were clear in documents and writings that this was a negative power not a positive power. The ability to control any and all commerce is the utter control of everything. This is absolutely in opposition to the entire letter of the whole constitution which is a document that spells out the very limited powers that the federal government does have.
@@nathantowne2055 what is “commerce”?
@@nathantowne2055 commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services. It isn’t manufacturing, it isn’t what you pay your workers. The clause gives the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. But congress can’t pass a law dictating a minimum wage for France. Why do you think it gives congress the power to pass a minimum wage law for the United States?
Utter BS. The Federalist Papers tell us exactly what the commerce clause was meant to accomplish. How's about read that before you jack your jaw? Or... you could take a class in grammar and sentence diagraming to figure out what is meant by "Among the States". The Ogden case dealt with one state infringing on the commerce between states. The spin put on that in subsequent cases is the court amending the constitution to include objects of commerce rather than the flow of commerce between/among the states. Among the States. Among the States. Not among states and corporations. Not among persons and objects. The court amended the constitution illegally with the modern interpretations. And you went along, totally unaware.
Congress does not "have to get involved"