quote:Originally posted by Jugflier:quote:You say "think global, shop local"...but what you are really advocating is "neomercantilism".
In these United States, the income tax was decreed to be unconstitutional until the turn of the last century. That means for 140 years the U.S government collected revenue the only way the Constitution allowed; Taffiffs.
That's right, Tarriffs ARE Constitutional.
Well...what did you say in an earlier post? Thanks for "saying the obvious"...
Tariffs are constitutional..."Revenue" tariffs, not "Protectionist" tariffs.
quote:Originally posted by Jugflier:
These sections specifically gives congress the right to regulate interstate, as well as impose tariffs and negotiate treaties.
All these things are directly linked to the economy.
Therefore your dream of an unregulated economy is a pipe dream and unconstitutional.
With all due respect.
Well...with all due respect...you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about an "unregulated" economy. But one free of government influence and distortion.
But back to the "commerce clause". I really don't know what you are trying to argue, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. The original intent of your thread was to show how those "evil" rich people are enslaving us all...but yet you seem to be advocating an extremely broad view of the commerce clause...one that allows the government the ability to co-conspire with the politically connected "evil" rich to do those things you are railing against!...sigh...
"These sections specifically gives congress the right to regulate interstate, as well as impose tariffs and negotiate treaties."
Are you seriously making the argument that those passages give the federal government the power to have their hands in every aspect of our economic life? I mean...I know that's what generations of presidents, congressmen, and judges have ruled...but when held to the standard of original intent...they and you are clearly wrong.
Congress has the authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”...this means to keep things "regular"...not to dictate how all economic activity is to take place. The understanding at the time was "commerce" equaled "trade"...in other words keep "trade" regular among the several states...A free trade zone in the confederation of states. James Madison said as much, and that was the original understanding the "commerce clause".
This idea that commerce meant more than trade, that it means "all gainful economic activities" or even broader...that it means "any human interaction", is a total innovation of original intent...a progressive idea of the 20th century. Not the vision of the founders.
This "interpretation" of the commerce clause flies in the face of history. By looking at the understanding of the founding generation...the convention in Philadelphia...the state ratifying conventions...letters by the founders, etc shows clearly that “Commerce” in the Constitution means trade and associated activities and nothing more.
So once again I affirm that whether it be "rich" people or politically connected people...they would not have the extreme advantages over ordinary workers and business owners if it were not for the power of GOVERNMENT...hold them to the Constitution and that power is severely limited.