See:
House passes bill to regulate tobacco

.


Well, if you thought either of our two presidential candidates intend to abide by their oath of office to support and defend the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, the above is more evidence they are both tyrannical control freaks of the worst kind, and very much part of our Washington Establishment’s control freak crowd. Both Obama and McCain support the above proposed and tyrannical seizure of power and intend to have Congress enter the states and exercise a power not authorized by our written Constitution.

Let us look at the facts. The legislation titled Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act H.R.1108, states in part:




And the question is, by what constitutional authority does Congress have power to enter a state to regulate tobacco products therein and compel a person who manufactures tobacco products to register with the federal government?

Of course, our control freak crowd on Capitol Hill will claim such power is found under Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution ___ that Congress has been granted power:



So, let us take a look at the documented intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among [not within] the states. An immediate clue to those intentions is surprisingly discovered in another part of our Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9:



Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers with regard to commerce, which was to insure free trade [movement of goods] among the states.

And, in Federalist Paper No. 42] Madison articulates the very reasons for which the power to regulate commerce ought to be placed under the national legislature‘s powers:



The power to regulate commerce among the states was primarily intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as those goods passed through its borders. There was never any intention to allow Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products what-so-ever!

Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight in a specific and narrowly defined area__ a state‘s inspection laws:




The documented truth is, Congress is not authorized by our written Constitution, nor was there any intentions expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, to authorize Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use, or consumption of any products! As a matter of fact, Congress’s limited powers in this particular area [regulation of commerce among the states] was specifically intended to prevent interference of free trade among the states, which our control freak crowd now attempts to engage in via regulating the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products.

Aside from the above documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, there is still more glaring evidence, also found in the wording of our Constitution, to show our control freak crowd is acting tyrannically and without Constitutional authority!

In 1920 Congress was granted power to enter the states to prohibit the “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” see the 18th Amendment. Under section 2, the power to allow Congress to enter the states was intentionally granted by the states to the federal government by the following words:



But this power granted to Congress to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, or transportation of a product was withdraw by the 21st Amendment by the following words:



And thus, such power evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment!

In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and regulate as the people in each state feel is in their own state’s best interests was intentionally taken back and emphasized by section two of the 21st Amendment!



So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers within the various states in violation of our written Constitution which blatantly violates federalism, our Constitution’s plan?

I would say the seizure of such power, aside from the obvious left wing control freak mindset which inspires it, also allows the creation of a substantial number of political plum jobs [federal regulators, administrators, etc.] which are awarded to the friends of big government and loyal to Congress ___ such jobs having excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical and dental plans and a very generous retirement plan, all of with Mary and Joe Sixpack, living South Carolina, can only dream of having but will be taxed to finance! See: WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW




Regards,
JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

.

I am disappointed that a subject of such importance, one involving the “regulation of commerce”, seems to generate little interest, especially when that very power has been use by Congress to seize dictatorial power over our lives and property.

In any event, I will offer the following research which I hope some will find not only interesting, but useful in the fight to restore our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government.

The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was in no way synonymous with a policing power allowing Congress to enter the states to regulate the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or production processes carried on within the various state borders.

In fact, the word commerce as used by our founding fathers was very limited and synonymous with “trade” ___ the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B. Congress was given the power in question to insure free trade among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through, and which I documented in the first post in this thread.

Seems to me an erroneous definition of the word “commerce” is at the root of the allowance of Congress to seize powers never intended to be exercise by those who framed and ratified our Constitution. The following documented examples of the word being used during the ratification process of our Constitution ought to establish beyond any doubt its meaning is synonymously used with “trade” and/or the transportation of goods, and it had nothing to do with a policing power over the manufacturing process of goods within the states, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or the production processes carried on within the various state borders.

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE MASSACHUETTS RATIFING CONVENTION WHEN THE CONVENTION WAS DISCUSSING ART. 1 SEC. 8, PROPOSED POWERS OF CONGRESS AND RAISING REVENUE

Mr. DAWES SPEAKING:

“As to commerce, it is well known that the different states” PAGE 57:




IN CONTINUING ON THE SUBJECT AND Hon. Mr. BOWDOIN SPEAKING: PAGE 83



Now, where do some get the notion that the word “commerce”, as used in our Constitution, is synonymous with “industry” or “manufacturing“, and would lead to the following absurd conclusion ___ that Congress has power

“To regulate industry and manufacturing with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes“ which must follow if the assertion is correct.[see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

The truth is, it is sheer insanity to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to surrender their internal policing powers to Congress, and allow Congress to henceforth enter the states to dictate the regulation of a state’s manufacturing industry, or regulate its agricultural industry, or dictate the use of, or prohibition of consumer articles of consumption.

Finally, I do not find anything in the Constitution granting power to Congress to enter the various states and regulate “the “manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products”, which is now proposed by our nation’s control freaks on Capitol Hill. And the question is: By what constitutional authority do they justify the exercise of the power proposed?


JWK


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

John wk, There are several, several posts that I've made that get little to no traffic here, except for one to two posters.

A lot of energy gets put into arguing with the nuts.

The sad thing is, most of our founding fathers were God fearing individuals and they expected a God fearing people would support and defend the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and in so doing would keep the flame of liberty alive. Little did they know that God fearing people would willingly yield to the very evil type of people our Constitution was intended to hold in check, and allow them to tell the people what the Constitution means, rather than the people pointing to the expressed intentions and beliefs of our founding fathers, spoken during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process.

How sad that the servant has become the master over those who created a servant, and the new servant is now paying tribute by taxation to a evil government which ignores the documented intentions and beliefs under which our founding fathers adopted our Constitution. Our children will suffer dearly for Christians who today vote with their heart, and are not guided by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

We have become a ship afloat in dangerous waters guided by evil doers in political power who are unrestrained by our written Constitution, which was designed by our founding fathers, and intended to be our nation’s guiding light.

Regards,

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.