I just wanted to add a bit of legal background concerning one particular aspect of the Constitution. Everyone should be aware of it, which is why it is never discussed.
The Constitution, even as written, provides no protection against totalitarians. That is, in practical terms, They are going to do what They think They can get away with, and--if pressed--They will tell you the Constitution says so.
The item here in point is a single sentence, the boring-sounding "Commerce Clause". The wiki page, albeit a ways down, finally admits it's significance:
The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders.
You will also find it spelled out a bit more directly in this article:
The Commerce Clause serves a two-fold purpose: it is the direct source of the most important powers that the Federal Government exercises in peacetime, and, except for the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is the most important limitation imposed by the Constitution on the exercise of state power.
See why no one ever mentions it?
Use of it really kicked into overdrive in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. A guy in Ohio grew wheat on his farm in Ohio to feed to animals on that farm in Ohio, and the Feds said he grew too much for their liking. Got him with the old Commerce Clause!
But back to what my point was about totalitarianism, if you browse through the wiki and that article, you'll find a real hit parade of all your regime favorites: the Civil Rights Act, the Controlled Substances Act and the Drug War, the Affordable Care Act, Gun-Free School Zones Act, "gender-motivated violence", etc. IOW, everything that comes to mind when you think "Commerce among the several States".
I recall hearing that something shocking, like 1/4 or 1/2, of all Federal legislation was based on the Commerce Clause. While I obviously support all legislation being tied back to the Constitution for the sake of understanding and transparency, the ultimate source of trouble is that They will not limit Their actions because of that document or any other.
I just wanted to add a bit of legal background concerning one particular aspect of the Constitution. Everyone should be aware of it, which is why it is never discussed.
The Constitution, even as written, provides no protection against totalitarians. That is, in practical terms, They are going to do what They think They can get away with, and--if pressed--They will tell you the Constitution says so.
The item here in point is a single sentence, the boring-sounding "Commerce Clause". The wiki page, albeit a ways down, finally admits it's significance:
You will also find it spelled out a bit more directly in this article:
Commerce Powers Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution
See why no one ever mentions it?
Use of it really kicked into overdrive in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. A guy in Ohio grew wheat on his farm in Ohio to feed to animals on that farm in Ohio, and the Feds said he grew too much for their liking. Got him with the old Commerce Clause!
But back to what my point was about totalitarianism, if you browse through the wiki and that article, you'll find a real hit parade of all your regime favorites: the Civil Rights Act, the Controlled Substances Act and the Drug War, the Affordable Care Act, Gun-Free School Zones Act, "gender-motivated violence", etc. IOW, everything that comes to mind when you think "Commerce among the several States".
I recall hearing that something shocking, like 1/4 or 1/2, of all Federal legislation was based on the Commerce Clause. While I obviously support all legislation being tied back to the Constitution for the sake of understanding and transparency, the ultimate source of trouble is that They will not limit Their actions because of that document or any other.