Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sweeney]

While living in Nashua in the early 1990's, I spent a great deal of time (about three years) researching the interstate commerce clause.  I soon discovered Congress uses the interstate commerce clause as their grant of power to regulate and control every aspect of our life from the cradle to grave by way of a federal license issued the a citizen to engage in interstate commerce.  Without this federal license, Congress does not have jurisdiction over your private commerce. (1)  This research sat on the shelf until a few years ago when I decided to once again make it available to the public.   Here's a FREE PDF copy of the book Dulocracy in America: The Commerce "Claws."  

http://dulocracy.com/dulocracy.pdf

Read Chapter 11 - The "Great Secret" in Dulocracy in America.  You'll understand how President Roosevelt's federal licensing scheme is being used today.

"What the people really want they generally get. The same Constitution which serves as a shield to protect the rights of the people will now be used as the sword for their own destruction." Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1937.

In fact, John G Winant, three-time New Hampshire governor during the 1920's and 30's knew about this federal licensing scheme and refused to get the license. Even President Roosevelt did not avail himself of this federal license to engage in interstate commerce.  His lovely wife Eleanor never had this federal license.  The above quoted Chief Justice Hughes never had this license to engage in interstate commerce.  Just like today with ObamaCare - history repeats itself.            

Any comments about the book would be appreciated.  To Learn more about the book go to www.dulocracy.com

J.D. Sweeney

(1.)  "The right to engage in commerce between the states is not a right created by or under the Constitution of the United States.  It existed long before that Constitution was adopted. It was expressly guaranteed as a privilege inherent in American citizenship." Hoxie v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R.R. Co. 73, 73 Atl. Rep. 754, 759 (1909).

[Bazil]

Yeah, if the founding fathers knew how the commerce clause was going to be use they probably would have rewordered it.  Relying on the butterfly effect they could regulate anything that want.

[Sweeney]

If you read Dulocracy in American, you'll discover just how the Roosevelt Administration in 1936 created this federal license to engage in interstate commerce and why not everyone fell for this licensing scheme.  Take a look at ObamaCare.  Using the same playbook from the 1930's.


   

[Sam Adams]

   I will have to go back and read the original wording of the clause. As far as I read it, Congress has the right or responsibility to Promote Interstate Commerce, not restrict and limit or hamper with the free movement of goods and agreements[contracts]. States have lost their way hundreds of years ago allowing their nation state status to be attacked by a smelly rotten corrupted 10 sq mile slime....

[Sam Adams]

   Dulocracy in America,, very good read, I will have to read the entire book. Yes, we are licensed and forced[so we think were forced] to enter into contract agreements for every aspect of our lives. Even my dog wants a license, but where is his SS# I mean his personal retirement #? Cars, marriage even voting contracts, deeds, parents, Birth certificates, we give everything up as far as rights go everyday with contracts.

[Bazil]

I looked at some of it Sweeney.  Interesting stuff, most of the stuff about Roosevelt I read in other places before.  The sad thing is they don't teach you that kind of stuff in history class.  Just what a "great man" he was, you have to look the other stuff up.

[John Edward Mercier]

Yeah, if the founding fathers knew how the commerce clause was going to be use they probably would have rewordered it.  Relying on the butterfly effect they could regulate anything that want.

Actually we could have changed it any time that we wanted.

[John Edward Mercier]

If you read Dulocracy in American, you'll discover just how the Roosevelt Administration in 1936 created this federal license to engage in interstate commerce and why not everyone fell for this licensing scheme.  Take a look at ObamaCare.  Using the same playbook from the 1930's.


   

Obamacare is the taxation clause.

[John Edward Mercier]

   I will have to go back and read the original wording of the clause. As far as I read it, Congress has the right or responsibility to Promote Interstate Commerce, not restrict and limit or hamper with the free movement of goods and agreements[contracts]. States have lost their way hundreds of years ago allowing their nation state status to be attacked by a smelly rotten corrupted 10 sq mile slime....

Congress has the authority to control interstate commerce. It doesn't stipulate for what purpose.

[Sweeney]

Unless it is authorized by the commerce clause of the Constitution it is not constitutional. That clause is: ‘The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’ Under the commerce clause, Congress has power to regulate one thing only; that is, ‘commerce
among the several states.’ Nothing else can it regulate by virtue of this power.

Manufacturing is not commerce, nor any part of commerce. Nothing more firmly is established in constitutional law than that. Congress, therefore, under the commerce power cannot regulate manufacturing. Hence it cannot regulate the relations between employers and employees in manufacturing, as commerce. Never can these relations
be any part of commerce. 

Of course this can change when industries and employees voluntarily decide to bring themselves under congressionally controlled and regulated commerce via a federal license.       

[John Edward Mercier]

I don't think they use the Commerce Clause to control manufacturing; though if they tried, then you could bring your case before SCOTUS - which is the resolution of disagreement under the US Constitution.

[ccrader]

I believe the SCOTUS has gone as far as to say that growing your own crops on your own lands counts as interstate commerce and can be regulated. There is no more protection...

[Sweeney]

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up Roscoe Filburn and the interstate commerce wheat case of 1942.  Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S 111 (1942).  This case decided by the US Supreme Court has been bantered around as proof the federal government can regulate all activities in interstate commerce. They tout that even a wheat farmer (Roscoe Filburn) could not even for family consumption use or sell excess wheat without government permission.  His activities being in the “stream” of interstate commerce.

However, if you read the briefs from both the appeals court and the Supreme Court you’ll discover that the wheat Mr. Filburn wanted to sell or even use for his family DID NOT belong to him.  It belonged to the federal government.  He was subsidized for growing the wheat and was given a price for his wheat prior to planting.  

Several of his neighbors which did not take the government farm subsidize were free to sell their wheat on the open market, or for that matter use it to make flapjacks.  

Justice Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court summed up the legal issue of the case in one sentence: “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes”

But the court being Roosevelt appointees had to confuse the issue and of course willing press went along with the “everyone is under interstate commerce” tale.

Because of space constraints I can only give a very brief summary of this case.      

[ccrader]

Good to know! The fact that I was not able to find out ANYTHING about the fact that subsidies were involved until I actually read the decision of the court is fairly interesting. Thank you for the information. This probably says something about the quality of the media we receive these days.

However...

Justice Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court summed up the legal issue of the case in one sentence: “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes”

Unfortunately, this is simply one sentence of the entire opinion. As you put it...

But the court being Roosevelt appointees had to confuse the issue

And this is exactly the problem, and it's certainly not without legal consequences.  The court went WAY past making it about subsidies. From the opinion:

"The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce"

Now, thanks to Wickard v. Filburn, we can't ignore that this opinion exists and holds the lofty position as supreme court precedence which holds a whole lot of weight. Especially considering that this decision was supported unanimously by the court.

Since we're talking about court precedence, the fact that his neighbors weren't regulated is not at issue because they were not on trial. It's certainly not as if the government tried to regulate them and the supreme court stopped it. Since their circumstances are slightly different, we can't say for sure how the SCOTUS would have ruled. However, they did provide multiple reasons for ruling the way that they did against Filburn. Even if his neighbors wouldn't have been ruled against because of subsidies, they still would have fallen under the other arguments, especially the previously mentioned argument, which means since the court accepted that argument, they likely would have ruled the same way.
And even if they wouldn't have at the time, they almost certainly would now that there's precedence for it. At least it certainly seems that way to me.

Of course this is just how it seems to me from my limited knowledge and research. If you have any more interesting information about the case I would be happy to hear it!
It's quite likely that I'm missing something fundamental.

But in the end, the court is also an agent of the state, which benefits from a certain security that comes with the state's monopoly. Sometimes, I feel like they twist themselves in pretzels and really go the extra mile to secure the power of the state..

[Sweeney]

Unlike his neighbors Roscoe Filburn chose to accept the subsidy.  The argument he was denied due process under the constitution was estopped (1) under Guardian Trust v. Fisher.  In Fisher the court said:

“An individual may be under no obligation to do a particulate thing, and his failure to act creates no liability, but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do the particular thing he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it.”  200 U.S. 57 (1906)

Once Filburn voluntarily accepted to act a certain way, he was under an implied obligation or contract to act.   In 1936 the Court created the Ashwander doctrine.  In Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 323 (1936),  the Court declared:

“…one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality.  Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 by U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407; St. Louis Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469.”

The same doctrine applies to this federal license to engage in interstate license.  If you accept the license the license holder is under an implied obligation to act.

Read Chapter 11 of the book for further clarification.

(1) Estoppel is a term of wide implication, and implies that one who by his deed or conduct has acted in a particular manner will not be permitted to adopt an inconsistent position, attitude, or course of conduct.  To use the language of Lord Coke, under the doctrine of estoppel, “a man’s owne act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.”  See Dulocracy in America, Book II for a discussion on Estoppel.