The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Could the United States function with a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause?

Micahweeks · June 9, 2009, 11:14 PM

The Interstate Commerce Clause was originally intended to regulate foreign commerce, commerce with the Native Americans, and commerce between the states. In this capacity I believe it to be quite useful. However, I take issue when it is paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause to extend power of the federal government to areas they would otherwise have had no power to regulate. This kind of abuse was foreseen by Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists that claimed that the Necessary and Proper clause would provide boundless power to the federal government.

As it turns out, Patrick Henry was right. It is not the Commerce Clause in and of itself that is the enemy to the 2nd Amendment. I believe it is the Necessary and Proper clause. Only when paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause is the Commerce Clause any real threat to 2nd Amendment rights or any other right for that matter.

To sum up my view: I don't believe restricting or more narrowly interpreting the Commerce Clause is necessary to protect our rights. I believe that if one more narrowly interprets or does away with entirely the Necessary and Proper Clause, you thereby remove the only thing that makes the Commerce Clause threatening.

June 9, 2009, 11:14 PM	#17
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	The Interstate Commerce Clause was originally intended to regulate foreign commerce, commerce with the Native Americans, and commerce between the states. In this capacity I believe it to be quite useful. However, I take issue when it is paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause to extend power of the federal government to areas they would otherwise have had no power to regulate. This kind of abuse was foreseen by Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists that claimed that the Necessary and Proper clause would provide boundless power to the federal government. As it turns out, Patrick Henry was right. It is not the Commerce Clause in and of itself that is the enemy to the 2nd Amendment. I believe it is the Necessary and Proper clause. Only when paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause is the Commerce Clause any real threat to 2nd Amendment rights or any other right for that matter. To sum up my view: I don't believe restricting or more narrowly interpreting the Commerce Clause is necessary to protect our rights. I believe that if one more narrowly interprets or does away with entirely the Necessary and Proper Clause, you thereby remove the only thing that makes the Commerce Clause threatening.