The most evil mal-interpretation of the constitution yet.

There are many awful interpretations of the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court.  For example, the Hugo Black interpretation of the First Amendment to suddenly include a “Separation of Church and State” into the amendment that didn’t exist in any precedent, or federalist papers.  In one stroke, he completely changed the Constitution.  What was once “Freedom *OF* Religion” became “Freedom *FROM* Religion.”

Or take the recent Supreme Court rulings against the Second Amendment, where instead of ruling that there can be no limits on the Right to Bear Arms, like the Second Amendment says, states and local municipalities are allowed to limit the Right to Bear Arms.  There should be an entity above the Supreme Court that is able to purge their unconstitutional rulings on the spot, and punish those court members for getting it wrong.

But there is one ruling that has had a worse effect than all the other Supreme Court rulings.  And that is of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  To understand the Commerce Clause, you need to understand the history of the United States at the founding.

After the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the United States came together not under the Constitution, but under the Articles of Confederation.  Unlike the Constitution that had a strong, centralized Federal Government with the States having a seat at the table, the Confederate States had each of the States having an equal share of power, with the Federal Government having a seat at the State’s table.  Basically it was a government by state committee, instead of a centralized government with state input and participation.

The Confederated States of America was an abysmal failure.  As with any committee run by perfect equals across the board, everyone thought they were the best and could do everything they wanted.  Each state started minting their own money.  They started writing their own decrees and tax laws.  And most importantly, they started to levy taxes and tariffs on the other states as goods were shipped and sold across state borders.

The entire economy of the Confederated States of America folded like a cheap tent.  When each individual state’s economy crashed, they started levying heavier and heavier taxes on their own economies, and worse tariffs on imports.  (Sound familiar? Side Note:  There was actually one state that chose not to do this and thrived under the CSA.  That state was Rhode Island.  Not coincidentally, Rhode Island didn’t want to participate in the Constitutional Convention.)

So come time to have a second try at writing our controlling documents for the future of the United States, the founding fathers came up with this:

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

Unironically, when it says that the federal government has the power to regulate Commerce among the several states, it means exactly that.  And no more.  It does not mean that the Federal Government gets to do whatever it wants.  It does NOT mean that the Federal Government can interfere with business and industry.  it does NOT mean that the Federal Government gets to crush business under onerous regulations.  It does NOT mean that if the Federal Government passes a law or regulation that it gets sole authority, and power to rule on that forever more.

Knowing the history of our Country, it EXPLICITLY means that the States are not allowed to tax and tariff each other.  Nothing more.

What is ironic is that the Commerce Clause has been perverted to the ends of Earth and back, and that the very one thing it was written to prevent is allowed to continue.  For example, recently States have begun taxing out of state purchases on the internet.  This is explicitly forbidden in the United States Constitution!

In my opinion, far more damage has been done to our country with this mal-interpretation of the US Constitution than any other bumbling idiot’s misinterpretation.

 

Hi all!  Sorry for the lack of updates.  Business has been picking up (from nothing to something), and while I have a lot of essay ideas floating around, I wasn’t able to sit down and finish one until this post.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The most evil mal-interpretation of the constitution yet.

  1. dbhalling says:

    First Amendment:

    The article states “For example, the Hugo Black interpretation of the First Amendment to suddenly include a “Separation of Church and State” into the amendment that didn’t exist in any precedent, or federalist papers. In one stroke, he completely changed the Constitution. What was once “Freedom *OF* Religion” became “Freedom *FROM* Religion.”

    Here is what the 1st amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    First of all the establishment part of the first amendment clearly means separation of Church and State. There is no other possible interpretation. Second of all, the Bill of Rights has to be read in the context of Natural Rights and yes you have a Natural Right to be free from religion. Christians like to make this distinction because they want prayers at public events, god in the pledge of allegiance (which by the way this was not added until the 50s and the pledge was created by a socialist and is clearly collectivist), publicly paid for nativity scenes. How will they like it when god is changed to Allah in pledge or we have religious scenes from the Koran?

    I do have some sympathy with the Christians in that the government has taken over so much of our life that we almost have no private life, which for Christians would seem to be forcing them out of their religion.

    The reality is freedom from religion was clearly established in the states before the 1st amendment, for instance see the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_of_Religious_Freedom, which states
    “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;”

    This is the establishment clause spelled out and means no Nativity scenes paid for with public money, no public prayers, no ‘in god we trust’.

    Here is another quote from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,”

    This show the 1st amendment was meant to keep religion out of public discourse, that the US was not founded on Judeo Christian values. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s