[extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Vey. How about just "asshole"? Actually, as the interstate highways
> > are
> > channels of commerce, and there are, and have been for a long time,
> > federal regs against the blockading of channels of commerce. It is
> > generally considered an act of war.
> 
> Is there a specific, written source for that?  For example, say two
> neighboring states (say, California and Nevada) allowed some
> substance
> (drugs, stem cells, certain advanced-tech machines, whatever) to be
> freely and openly possessed by their citizens in a way that the feds
> had surrendered jurisdiction over, but where the feds did make it a
> crime to transport it over state lines.  Possession and transport
> would
> not be a crime on either side of the line, so the states might object
> to feds' attempt to regulate it at their mutual border (even if they
> did not protest enforcement at other borders, if the other states
> were less permissive on this issue). 

Actually, the SCOTUS just ruled against the state interposition
argument wrt the medical marijuana laws passed in the last several
years, ruling that federal authority to regulate interstate commerce
trumps state laws. The term "channels of commerce" is, AFAIKR, in the
Constitution as the responsibility of the federal government. I comes
from the fact that in colonial and early America, there were no real
roads of any distance that one could ship any real quantity of goods
over. River channels were the 'channels of commerce' at the time and
the access that each major coastal city had to the interior via a river
system tended to determine its economic growth. Boston had the Charles
and Merrimack river systems, Portsmouth had the Piscataquah, New York
had the Hudson River (and eventually the Erie Canal), Philadelphia had
two rivers, etc...

After the Roosevelt Administration packed the SCOTUS, that court ruled
that interstate roads funded by the federal government were similar
channels of commerce, and ultimately, since you can drive from anywhere
to anywhere, anywhere you can drive is federal commercial jurisdiction.
Thus the Interstate Highway System was built in the Truman and
Eisenhower era under federal commerce authority.


> What part of the legal code would
> allow the states to treat enforcement (and the necessary blockade or
> delay of traffic) as an act of war by the federal government upon the
> two states?

Ah, now that would be an interesting conundrum. They shouldn't be able
to unless the states are in a state of rebellion (as opposed to lawful
secession, which is an entirely different debate we won't deal with
here). The government's commerce authority is only to regulate, not to
bar interstate commerce. When you bar commerce, there is no more
commerce, and therefore no more authority...

This should be the constitutional check upon fascism here in the US:
when congress overreaches the few powers it is delegated by the people,
it should be held in contempt of constitution by the courts. If an
administration ignores a SCOTUS order limiting its authority, the
administration should be impeached and tried for treason. The courts
today, however, are circumspect when both Congress and the
Administration overreach. "Treason doth never prosper, what is the
reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason!"

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html