A Progressive Perverts the Commerce Clause; but O’Reilly Gets it Right!
Bill O’Reilly (Fox News) made our Framers proud when, on March 26, 2012, he correctly explained [probably for the first time ever on TV] the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause. O’Reilly’s guest was Big Government Progressive Caroline Fredrickson, Esq., of the inaptly named “American Constitution Society”. In trying to defend Obamacare, she said that our Framers intended to grant to Congress extensive powers over the “national economy”:
“When the Founding Fathers adopted the Constitution, they put in the commerce clause ah specifically so that Congress could actually regulate interstate commerce. They envisioned a national economy, and we really have one now, and to the tune of over two trillion dollars, health care makes up a big big part of that and so it’s completely within the power of ah Congress to pass this legislation [Obamacare] and to attempt to provide some reasonable regulation…”
But what she said is not true! Accordingly, O’Reilly responded:
“The interstate commerce clause was put in so individual States could not charge tariffs [for] going from one state to another. So, for example, Pennsylvania would say to New Jersey, ‘Hey, you can’t bring in anything here from New Jersey unless you pay us 2% on it.’ ”
Bravo, O’Reilly! That is precisely the purpose of the interstate commerce clause. James Madison, Father of our Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 42 (9th para):
“… A very material object of this power [to regulate interstate commerce] 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 … 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…”
And Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22 (4th para):
“…’ The commerce of the German empire … is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of … duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the … navigable rivers [of] … Germany … are rendered almost useless.’ Though the … people of this country might never permit this … to be … applicable to us, yet we may … expect, from the … conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would … come to be … treated by the others in no better light …”
So! What our Framers actually said was that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to authorize Congress to prevent the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.1
But Fredrickson apparently has no idea what our Framers said. She dug deeper:
“Actually this was a major issue at stake in the adoption of the Constitution was the ability of our national government to deal with national issues and, let’s look a little bit at what’s happened in the 20th century…”
What? Our Framers made a “major issue” of their determination to grant to Congress power over whatever it might in the future deem to be a “national issue”?
No Way! What Fredrickson said is demonstrably not true. Our Framers said the exact opposite of what she represented. In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison identified the “national issues” Congress would be dealing with:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….” [boldface mine]
In Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end):
“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” [boldface mine]
and in Federalist No. 14 (8th para):
“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.…” [boldface mine]
Do you see? Our Framers drafted a Constitution which established a Federation of Sovereign States united only for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. The powers of each of the three branches of the federal government are carefully limited and defined. See: Congress’ enumerated powers, the President’s enumerated powers, and the Judicial Branch’s enumerated powers. Our Constitution does not delegate general legislative powers over the Country at large to Congress! Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. And nothing – nothing – in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control the provision – or denial – of medical care to The People. Thus, Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress by Our Constitution.
Folks! Do not believe what you hear people saying about Our Constitution on TV or the Radio. Most of them don’t know what they are talking about, or they are lying. Only rarely does anyone get it right as O’Reilly did. So you must check things out for yourself. And always demand Proof! PH
End Note:
1 For a more definitive explanation of the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause, and more irrefutable proof from primary sources, see: Does The Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress To Force Us To Buy Health Insurance? Progressives! Read it and rebut it, if you can. PH
Replies
Wow........can it be?? Now, SCOTUS has it in front of them if they will only read.........it shouldn't take two months to deep six the Obamacare communist debacle..............
HT and salute to O'Reilly............
I cannot believe that O'reilly got it right. he always seemed like he went with the flow instead of the constitution. I guess judge Napalitano rubbed off on him.
Interesting thanks.
He==O'reilley shoud have corrected her, and explained the law to her. She is not just mistaken, she intentionally lied. This is how the left always gets away with so much. The lie, someone calls them on it, and they back down, but meanwhile some gullible fool has bought the story. All of the "lawmakers" know this, but they are not bringing it out in front of the voters like President Reagan (the last real president we have had) did.
This is just typical of how the left has attempted for over 100 years to pervert the constitution. The unfortunate part is that we have justices on the Supreme Court such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg who are of the same mind as this idiot on O'Reilly's show. I hope the Lord allows me to stick around long enough to people like Ginsburg get their just desserts. I suspect the two appointed by Body Odor are of the same persuasions as Ginsburg.
It Boiled Down To DemocRats Suck!
Additional by Alan Weisberger
The State of California now requires you to pay sales tax on purchases outside the state,
It seems they do not believe in the constitution.
The liberal democrats have long believed that the constitution was an outdated and bothersome piece of work that needs to be completely redone in a way that will allow the federal government ultimate power and final say in ALL matters concerning the U.S. The only difference is that of late they are more boldly saying just that and acting as if they can disregard it at their whim. "My justice department will no longer enforce the DOMA (defense of marriage act)." President Obama. What is the charge of the justice department if not to enforce all of our laws? Just one small example of the many that we are all aware of.