Sometimes when I am analyzing all things political, I get this gut feeling that something just isn’t right. At the time, I usually can’t place my finger on what exactly is wrong, only that it just seems to be off base. I’m sure you’ve experienced this as well. Sometimes our brains have processed something that is not quite consciously there. Some people say that this what dreams do: they make what we should consciously understand more understandable.
For me, an example of this was when I first heard about President George W. Bush’s push for the ownership society. He talked about how home ownership was a good thing and it was important that all Americans should own a home, regardless of socio-economic status. Even though he did push for the reform of lending institutions, but was stopped by Democrats, it’s quite clear that he didn’t feel all that strongly about the problem and instead wanted to see people own homes, even on bad credit and horrendous debt. I recognized at the time that it was a foolish endeavor because I regarded debt as not true ownership. How my principles proved to be true in this case.
Whenever I read over the Constitution, I see many good things about it. It is an ideal that this nation’s Federal government has had trouble living up to, but at the same time a lot of the powers specified are easy to understand. When I read over it, however, there was one thing that hasn’t sat well with me ever since I took an advanced political science course in high school. When I read about how Congress is allowed to regulate interstate commerce, I always had a gut feeling that this was like giving a shotgun to an alcoholic hunter.
Now that I’m older, I feel more confident that I can explain why the Interstate Commerce Clause is counter-productive to freedom and liberty and must be repealed (add that to my list of amendments I’d like to add).
In order to understand why this clause invited tyranny into the Federal government, you have to understand basic economics. Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. That last part is key because when it comes to economics, any interaction could be considered a trade of some kind. When I wake up at 5 AM every work day to go to the gym, I am trading one hour of sleep for a healthier body, for example. When it comes to material goods, you make decisions based on your wants and your means. That’s precisely why a debt-fueled economy such as ours is doomed to continually collapse because when the bills come due, you end up spending your income on debt rather than on other goods and services.
Now Congress is only limited to regulate interstate commerce or ‘trade’. But trade happens across state lines whether there is an interaction or not. This is precisely why I actually agree with the Wickard v. Filburn decision, even though it solidified the tyranny of the Federal government. The truth is, whether you interact with the economy or not, you will effect the economic well-being of others. Although we are all individuals, we still are linked together is unusual and sometimes unexpected ways. While the Supreme Court may not have liked the decision, the argument was sound. Roscoe Filburn was affecting the wheat prices by growing his own to feed his chickens and not buying it from someone else. Unless someone who is an expert in economics can explain it to me otherwise, I am fairly confident that it is a viable argument, even if it expanded the tyrannical grasp of government.
While I am fairly certain that interstate commerce was supposed to apply solely to how state governments handle the transportation and distribution of goods and services across state lines, that clause is way too vague. I have a feeling that in keeping such things simple, the founding fathers falsely assumed that common sense and an adherence to principles would rule the day when it comes to government. In the case of the Interstate Commerce Clause, I believe that it is high time we repeal it entirely. In this day and age, the clause has become irrelevant with respect to its original intentions and it allows Congress to place unnecessary limits on economic activity. Not to mention all the Statist policies that are justified by it.
In my view, granting Congress to regulate trade in any manner is worse than counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for the reasons stated above. But don’t get me wrong, I know that if by some miracle it was repealed tomorrow, Congress would still pass the same laws they have always been passing. Even now they know what they are doing is unconstitutional (when the San Franciscan Stretch Face was asked about the constitutionality of the health care bill, she snapped, “Are you serious?”) and so while a repeal needs to be done, I doubt it would scale back the tyranny perpetrated on us by the Statists.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vTt4eqjWejP4XkB3O4cHSsMTvz6PyBhYU1zX9DeB-Fte6IjhQGGIdnPyLI0fkW-eSV1Ag5RJ_f7WxsCenBP1nZgJlJQ1k4m9AMDOFP3Gxmqf_v74Xe9ngS8i-u6g6riVL1gBydmk0-sckjfagw6B0=s0-d)