4 ms·

... which have been completely shit on by the criminals sitting on the Supreme Court. Interstate commerce has been applied to non-commercial private activities

... which have been completely shit on by the criminals sitting on the Supreme Court. Interstate commerce has been applied to non-commercial private activities on personal property in numerous ways, for 70+ years. Please see Raich v. Gonzales and Wickard v. Filburn.

bsimpson 14y ago
Interstate commerce is abused by all branches of the federal government, but the point is that laws regarding fraud or copyright don't abate our 1st Amendment rights to free speech.
gamblor956 14y ago
One of the hallmarks of technology, and especially the internet, is that almost no actions an individual takes can be regarded as truly private anymore. Nowadays, doing anything in some way has an effect on interstate commerce in a way not contemplated by the Founding Fathers. Raich and Wickard are not unreasonable extensions of federal power--they simply reflect the fact that technology has changed the nature of commerce since the Constitution was drafted.
- eurleif 14y ago
  The argument in Wickard is that growing wheat on your farm is interstate commerce because if you grow your own wheat, you won't buy someone else's wheat, which affects the interstate market for wheat. How does that depend on technological progress? Seems like it would apply as long as wheat were sold across state lines at all.
  - gamblor956 14y ago
    Interstate effect is meaningless if technology cannot support the transfer of goods across the necessary distances. In the 1900s, this technology was mostly physical, related to the transport and storage of goods. Today, technology across all sectors has improved to the point where you can now order heirloom todays and get same day delivery (in some markets). When these SCOTUS cases were decided, that same process would have taken months.
    - eurleif 14y ago
      Interstate markets always existed, despite being less convenient and less popular. If you chose to buy from a local vendor, you were implicitly choosing not to buy from an interstate vendor, which means you were having the indirect effect on interstate commerce that Wickard v. Filburn relies on.
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  Technology has nothing to do with it. Activity that does not involve trade is not commercial. Trade that does not cross state lines is not inter-state. Non-commercial (no selling, no trading) private activity that never leaves your property is not interstate commerce. The sky is still blue even if the Supreme Court says it is yellow.
  - gamblor956 14y ago
    Commercial activity does not require trade. Otherwise, professional services such as accounting or law would not be commercial activities since no "trade" actually occurs. Commercial activity simply requires an intent to achieve a net economic benefit position (i.e., profit) through an activity. Moreover, trade that does not cross state lines can be interstate. For example--you make good Widget that you sell nationwide. I decide in State X that I want to make and sell Widget as well. (Patent, etc. are not a concern in this hypothetical). My sale in State X of widget necessarily affects your interstate sale of the same widget: every widget that I sell in State X is one less that you might sell, which means one more widget is available in other states, altering the normal supply/demand considerations. (I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, this is the actual logic set forth in the SCOTUS cases.)
    - dreamdu5t 14y ago
      > professional services such as accounting or law You have to trade something in return for those services. Almost always that something is money. If a lawyer represents me for nothing in return - then no trade took place, it would be a gift.
- kbolino 14y ago
  Except that the power of Congress to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that Congress has the power to regulate an individual's commercial activity. It means that Congress has the power to forbid a state from interfering in commerce taking place across state lines. The problem with Raich and Wickard (et al.) is not that they extend federal power, but rather that they invent it of whole cloth.
  - gamblor956 14y ago
    "among the States," not "of the States" or "by the States." This means that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce occuring "amongst" several states. This includes but is not limited to regulating the States' power to regulate commerce within their own borders. Raich and Wickard do not invent federal power; they simply extend it to the modern era (or rather, into their future and our present day, since technology took a few decades to catch up).
    - dreamdu5t 14y ago
      Using that interpretation the Federal government has no meaningful limits on its power, if "regulate Commerce... among the several States" includes every physical thing in the US. Let me ask you this: What activity isn't covered in your interpretation of the commerce clause?
      - ubernostrum 14y ago
        The exact scope of the Commerce Clause is actually one of the classic questions of US constitutional law. Court interpretations have gone back and forth over the years; currently, things are a bit muddy because members of the Supreme Court have a tendency to expand or restrict the clause to suit their own ideologies (i.e., Scalia believes that a federal ban on marijuana can apply even to marijuana which never crosses a state line, because he doesn't like marijuana; he has a very different and arguably conflicting opinion on gun regulations, though, because he likes guns).

bsimpson 14y ago

Interstate commerce is abused by all branches of the federal government, but the point is that laws regarding fraud or copyright don't abate our 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

gamblor956 14y ago

One of the hallmarks of technology, and especially the internet, is that almost no actions an individual takes can be regarded as truly private anymore. Nowadays, doing anything in some way has an effect on interstate commerce in a way not contemplated by the Founding Fathers. Raich and Wickard are not unreasonable extensions of federal power--they simply reflect the fact that technology has changed the nature of commerce since the Constitution was drafted.

eurleif 14y ago
The argument in Wickard is that growing wheat on your farm is interstate commerce because if you grow your own wheat, you won't buy someone else's wheat, which affects the interstate market for wheat. How does that depend on technological progress? Seems like it would apply as long as wheat were sold across state lines at all.
- gamblor956 14y ago
  Interstate effect is meaningless if technology cannot support the transfer of goods across the necessary distances. In the 1900s, this technology was mostly physical, related to the transport and storage of goods. Today, technology across all sectors has improved to the point where you can now order heirloom todays and get same day delivery (in some markets). When these SCOTUS cases were decided, that same process would have taken months.
  - eurleif 14y ago
    Interstate markets always existed, despite being less convenient and less popular. If you chose to buy from a local vendor, you were implicitly choosing not to buy from an interstate vendor, which means you were having the indirect effect on interstate commerce that Wickard v. Filburn relies on.
dreamdu5t 14y ago
Technology has nothing to do with it. Activity that does not involve trade is not commercial. Trade that does not cross state lines is not inter-state. Non-commercial (no selling, no trading) private activity that never leaves your property is not interstate commerce. The sky is still blue even if the Supreme Court says it is yellow.
- gamblor956 14y ago
  Commercial activity does not require trade. Otherwise, professional services such as accounting or law would not be commercial activities since no "trade" actually occurs. Commercial activity simply requires an intent to achieve a net economic benefit position (i.e., profit) through an activity. Moreover, trade that does not cross state lines can be interstate. For example--you make good Widget that you sell nationwide. I decide in State X that I want to make and sell Widget as well. (Patent, etc. are not a concern in this hypothetical). My sale in State X of widget necessarily affects your interstate sale of the same widget: every widget that I sell in State X is one less that you might sell, which means one more widget is available in other states, altering the normal supply/demand considerations. (I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, this is the actual logic set forth in the SCOTUS cases.)
  - dreamdu5t 14y ago
    > professional services such as accounting or law You have to trade something in return for those services. Almost always that something is money. If a lawyer represents me for nothing in return - then no trade took place, it would be a gift.
kbolino 14y ago
Except that the power of Congress to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that Congress has the power to regulate an individual's commercial activity. It means that Congress has the power to forbid a state from interfering in commerce taking place across state lines. The problem with Raich and Wickard (et al.) is not that they extend federal power, but rather that they invent it of whole cloth.
- gamblor956 14y ago
  "among the States," not "of the States" or "by the States." This means that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce occuring "amongst" several states. This includes but is not limited to regulating the States' power to regulate commerce within their own borders. Raich and Wickard do not invent federal power; they simply extend it to the modern era (or rather, into their future and our present day, since technology took a few decades to catch up).
  - dreamdu5t 14y ago
    Using that interpretation the Federal government has no meaningful limits on its power, if "regulate Commerce... among the several States" includes every physical thing in the US. Let me ask you this: What activity isn't covered in your interpretation of the commerce clause?
    - ubernostrum 14y ago
      The exact scope of the Commerce Clause is actually one of the classic questions of US constitutional law. Court interpretations have gone back and forth over the years; currently, things are a bit muddy because members of the Supreme Court have a tendency to expand or restrict the clause to suit their own ideologies (i.e., Scalia believes that a federal ban on marijuana can apply even to marijuana which never crosses a state line, because he doesn't like marijuana; he has a very different and arguably conflicting opinion on gun regulations, though, because he likes guns).