See:
House passes bill to regulate tobacco

.

quote:

WASHINGTON -The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being.

Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday.

The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. Both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation. ___(my emphasis)

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:

quote:

`b. Registration by Owners and Operators- On or before December 31 of each year every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person.

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:

quote:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

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:

quote:

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”(my emphasis)

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:

quote:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

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:

quote:

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. ____ Article 1, Section 10

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:

quote:

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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:

quote:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

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!

quote:

The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, [u]in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.[/u]

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

quote:

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, [u]is $106,871 compared to just $53,288[/u] for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

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

Good write-up, JWK.

quote:

So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers...?

Just the name of this legislation is bad enough: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

They should just call it "The Prevention and Control Act." More reason why I'm not bothering to vote for either the Rebublicant or the Democan in this presidential election. The Clintons are out of the mix now, and they were the ONLY thing that would have forced me to vote for McPain. Like to nail his wife, though.

.I appreciate the responses to what I have posted above.

I am disappointed that a subject of such importance, one involving the “regulation of commerce”, seems to generate little interest in our political debates during federal elections. Especially when that very power has been use by Congress to seize dictatorial power, in so many ways, 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 federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

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:

quote:

now pursue different systems of duties in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from state to state. This is contrary to the policy of every nation on earth. Some nations have no other commerce. The great and flourishing empire of China has but little commerce beyond her own territories; and no country is better circumstanced than we for an exclusive traffic from state to state; yet even in this we are rivalled by foreigners--by those foreigners to whom we are the least indebted. A vessel from Roseway or Halifax finds as hearty a welcome with its fish and whalebone at the southern ports, as though it was built, navigated, and freighted from Salem or Boston. And this must be the case, until we have laws comprehending and embracing alike all the states in the Union.

But it is not only our coasting trade--our whole commerce is going to ruin. Congress has not had power to make even a trade law, which shall confine the importation of foreign goods to the ships of the producing or consuming country

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

quote:

These are some of the consequences, certain and infallible, that will flow from the denial of that power to Congress. Shall we then, we of this state, who are so much interested in this matter, deny them that power -- a power so essential to our political happiness?
But if we attend to our trade, as it is at present, we shall find that the miserable state of it is owing to a like want of power in Congress. Other nations prohibit our vessels from entering their ports, or lay heavy duties on our exports carried thither; and we have no retaliating or regulating power over their vessels and exports, to prevent it. Hence a decrease of our commerce and navigation, and the duties and revenue arising from them. Hence an insufficient demand for the produce of our lands, and the consequent discouragement of agriculture. Hence the inability to pay debts, and particularly taxes, which by that decrease are enhanced. And hence, as the necessary result of all these, the emigration of our inhabitants. If it be asked, How are these evils, and others that might be mentioned, to be remedied? the answer is short -- By giving Congress adequate and proper power. Whether such power be given by the proposed Constitution, it is left with the Conventions from the several states, and with us, who compose one of them, to determine.

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 was 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.

The Constitution is an a pain in the butt to present day politicians.

They would re-write it if they could!!

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
The Constitution is an a pain in the butt to present day politicians.

They would re-write it if they could!!

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.

If folks in government, federal and state, were sincerely concerned about our health as they pretend they are and with regard to smoking, they would adopt a constitutional amendment which would prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of tobacco products within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof which is used for human consumption purposes. And, the various state legislatures would agree by the constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to enter the states to enforce the amendment, just as they did with intoxicating liquors.

But, at least from where I stand, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is not about our health, nor is it even about smoking! This is about control freaks in the federal government attempting to broaden their power to regulate commerce among the States and seize an iron fisted regulatory power within the various state borders disguised under a noble cause! The game plan is ___ if we can get the people, especially our nation’s younger generation to accept and be comfortable with a federal regulatory power over their personal lives via the federal power to regulate commerce as applied to smoking, the door is then left open to regulate almost every aspect of their personal lives under Congress’s power to regulate commerce!

But as I have established above, 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 any event, HERE IS A LIST of House Members who are involved in this attempt to subjugate our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution’s plan. Please note how many Republicans are on the list!

Freedom loving people must start viewing these scoundrels for what they really are ____ domestic enemies of our constitutionally limited system of government ____ they are nothing more than slithering control freaks who wish to impose their personal predilections up the people in every state in our union, and do so without the people’s consent via an appropriate amendment granting such power to do so.

BTW, I am happy to see the following patriots voted against the proposal:

Boehner, John [R]
Hunter, Duncan [R]
Tancredo, Thomas [R]

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.