Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Matthew-
CATO Institute is a think-tank devoted to proving the value of libertarian thought. Unfortunately, they’ve got little understanding of the constitution, or the reason that their examples are federal crimes.

Regulation of drugs is a federal issue, and we should be glad. Would you like to deal with 50 separate state bureacracies in taking Vioxx off the market, much less enforcing laws against controlled substances?

But that doesn’t puzzle me as much as his objections on Major League Baseball. I mean,if any business (and yes, they are a business) would qualify as an example of Interstate commerce, MLB would.

I think his mistake is in thinking that we can determine what how our country should employ the constitution by what how our forebears employed it. Truth is, though, they never intended the constitution to be a pair of shackles on future generation. The framers were intensely interested in throwing off the old moldy forms of government and creating a dynamic government that would keep pace with it’s people.

This commerce clause flap is simply meant to force the deregulation of industries and finance. But the those things have national consequences often enough, and deal with companies that cross state lines with their business. The world of the framers has changed beyond their recognition, and distances that once thwarted the level of interstate commerce that we now see, are no longer such a barrier.

I don’t want the ICC abused anymore than you do, but that goes both ways. The framers gave us the gift of making our own interpretation of what the law proceeding from the constitution should be. To throw that gift away is to put our country in the hands of a style of government that rightfully receded into the past as our nation grew and change.

Good answer, Stephen and I’m sending it over to the author.

“Regulation of drugs is a federal issue, and we should be glad. Would you like to deal with 50 separate state bureacracies in taking Vioxx off the market, much less enforcing laws against controlled substances?”

I don’t think it matters that much as 50 state bureaucracies regulate traffic lights, and roads, etc. It may even be a good idea to have some things legal here and not there (allows comparison testing), though I would prefer warnings over banning. (Vioxx briefly taken saved my walking ability once.)

Major League baseball certainly makes the cut of being interstate commerce but really ICC is about reducing interstate protectionism not micromanaging the behavior of baseball players.

Anyway, your response is thought provoking.

Matthew-
Making things like drugs and interstate business a federal issue is advantageous for the same reason making interstate trade was: so that you would have one standard on business that had more than one state had a stake in at once, rather than several different standards whose jurisdiction would have to be ascertained.

What does the interstate commerce clause say?

Clause 3:[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Does it say prevent protectionism? No. The constitution was meant to delineate powers, not the applications of that power. Anything else is just interpretation. You call it a strict interpretation, but I’d ask whether it was a reasonable interpretation, given the leaps and bounds which interstate and international commerce have taken since then. The constitution was meant to be interpreted, because law is meant to be interpreted, and strict interpretation is usually just selective puritanical bias in decision.

State law is nice in matters that stay reasonably in state. But a international corporation is not a traffic light, and having every state build their own standard is just an invitation for a race to the bottom. By keeping one high federal standard, we eliminate the corporations ability to play state off of state in trying to get leniency and special favors.

I agree with Stephen here, but it wouldn’t boher me at all if Baseball became a sport again, instead of a Las Vegas style entertainment vehicle. Since I’m in a construction related field, I gain by the building of these taxpayer funded stadium monstronsities, but I find them as repulsive as I would the taxpayer funding of Polo Fields for the wealthy. Sure am glad there is no such thing as Wealthy Welfare.