The Commerce Clause and Twisted Logic

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

This is the clause of the US Constitution which the Federal Government uses to justify just about everything it does in respect to the economy; saying it gives them the authority to make laws about everything that affects commerce among the states. Such laws include gun laws, EPA restrictions, and agriculture laws; just to name a few. They contend this clause gives them the power to regulate even things which stay within a certain state if anything used for that product comes from out of state (i.e. a screw or paint).

However, by that logic, then the Federal Government would have the power to extend these types of laws to foreign Nations. Seeing as they do not have that power and never did or will, how can different logic be applied to a another clause of the same sentence?

The Supreme Court has 40 some case decisions on The Commerce Clause, and I am not familiar with all of them, but I don't see how this twisted logic can stand. The Federal Government can not logically have more power to regulate commerce among the states than it does with foreign nations.

Maybe if the courts actually read the Constitution and not case law this fallacy can be reversed, but I don't hold out hope.

Dominique Dorsey IV

Dominique Dorsey has signed with the team he first played with in the CFL, the Saskatchewan Roughriders. I hope he has a good season.

I still would like to see him get his shot in the NFL, but after not impressing the Redskins last year and getting up there in age for a running back (he'll be 27 this year) I'm not sure if we'll get to see that. But at least he is getting to play somewhere, too bad CFL games don't air here.

Government Revenue Structure

One hurtle which needs to be jumped in order to get the US government under control is to change the revenue structure. Right now,the money flows down; individuals pay the federal government and then they give the money to the states. That needs to be reversed in order to control spending and regulation. The states need to pay the federal government, and then the states will control the federal government instead of the backwards way it is now.

And likewise the states should be funded by the counties so the counties can control the states. If each individual county were responsible for funding the state they would be more active in policing the state budget. And this would give the local people more control on how funding is appropriated.

If a county with a large city wanted to have all kinds of social programs they could tax themselves to raise the money, and those areas that decide they don't want those programs wouldn't have to fund them.

The more localized the revenue structure the better it will fit the individuals and the more control it will give them.

One to upset communists

Drum-roll please......communism is a form of capitalsim! How can this be you ask? Well, lets look at capitalism in it's rawest form; capital is simply something one can trade, capitalism is where that capital is traded in return for something wanted by the person trading the capital. In communism the capital is a person's willingness to comply, which is traded for the things the government provides them. If someone were to not comply, the trade is cancelled and the person doesn't get what they want out of the trade. So, in a raw sense, communism is a form of capitalism. It may not matter, because communism is a horrid form of government no matter. But I just wanted to point this out so communists can be irritated with rationality and reality.

Healthcare Is Not A Right

Rights are those things that are naturally born to an individual (property rights), or in some cases to protect those natural rights from being usurped unjustly (right to a fair trial). All natural rigths extend from the right of property, the ability to own one's own body and by extention those things created by or earned in trade from the use of that body. Without the right to own one's body, there is no right to free speech or free thought, because those are things derived from the body. The right to gun ownership extends from the right to collect more property through trade of either effort or property and to protect that property. And so on.

Other things which are not natural to the human condition, may be essential, but are not rights. This includes such things as food, healthcare, and even guns, yes you have the right to trade for these things, but not have them provided. The government cannot create rights, only protect those which are natural to the human condition.

Addendum: Some "rights" in the Bill of Rights extend from the fact that we the governed created the government and impose restrictions on it to secure our natural rights, this is the case with jury trials and the right to a lawyer. Healthcare does not fall into this either.