Originally Posted by jazzguru
Laws were never meant to be enacted by decree, yet that is what we have allowed the Supreme Court to do.
Oh, stop it. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution, and that's exactly what they do. Even if the Supreme Court agrees that the Federal Government has a certain power under the Constitution, it's still up to Congress to pass a law which utilizes that power. No law can be enacted by decree, without the consent of Congress. The only one that has the power to (temporarily) supersede Congress, in matters of war, is the President. The USSC cannot do shit.
If a certain power has not been specifically enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies.
And Congress has the power to regulate commerce. There's no language in the Constitution whatsoever that says that such regulation does not include offering and paying incentives. We're not talking about something that can vaguely be linked to commerce. We're not talking about something that has ever been debated about commerce or the Commerce Clause. We're talking about commerce. Period. Even in the most conservative definition of the word. There's no ambiguity here.
Want to change the Constitution? That's where the Amendment process comes in. You will note that the amendment process has been abandoned because when you can legislate by decree, why do you need amendments?
In the context of the above, about the regulation of commerce, there's no need to amend the Constitution. If you want to forbid the US Gov't from paying out incentives as part of their regulation of commerce (incentives are an extremely
common part of trade management in every industry), then it it YOU who would have to make an amendment.
All we have to do nowadays is get people in positions of power that interpret the Constitution the way we want and force people to go along with that interpretation.
But isn't that what you're proposing to do? To interpret the Constitution in the way that suits YOUR political ideas, to limit Federal power as much as possible? The fact is that the USSC has never
interpreted the commerce clause in the limited way that you suggest, because your views are extremist. There has never been a change
to the interpretation of the commerce clause, with regard to this matter. You're making that shit up. What you're suggesting would be a change.
That is not freedom. That is tyranny.
You have the freedom to elect officials that support your extremist interpretation of the Constitution, in the hopes that they can get enough power to get your intended vote on the Supreme Court. Go ahead and use that freedom. That's how the system was designed by the Founders. In fact, the founders designed the system to protect itself from extremist views such as yours. The twenty second amendment strengthened that protection. In order for a radical change to the interpretation of the Constitution to be made, the views in question have to be widespread, and enduring.