Today, the Virginia House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1438 (HB1438), the Intrastate Commerce Act. The bill, “Provides that all goods produced or manufactured within the Commonwealth, when such goods are held, retained, or maintained in the Commonwealth, shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the constitutional power of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”
The vote was 65-33.
For decades, using a tortured definition of “interstate commerce,” Congress has claimed the authority to regulate, control, ban, or mandate virtually everything – from wheat grown on one’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individual’s own home for the same purpose, to guns manufactured, sold and kept in state boundaries, and everything in between. And, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has largely condoned and even encouraged such reprehensible legislative behavior.
But today, Virginia is once again leading the way in saying “Back Off” to the feds – by standing up for the Constitution as the founders gave it to us.
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
If, like any legal document, the words of the Constitution (and its amendments, too) mean today just what they meant when it was approved by the ratifiers, then we must understand the original meaning of words in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution – the “Interstate Commerce Clause.” It delegates to Congress the power to:
“regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
According to Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett, the original meaning of “commerce” was limited to the “trade and exchange” of goods and transportation for this purpose. The original meaning of “to regulate” generally meant “to make regular” -that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted-when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make “prohibitory regulations.” “Among the several States” meant between persons of one state and another.
According to Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, the commerce clause gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce — not any “matters that have significant spillover effects across state lines.” The Constitutional Convention rejected the wording of the Virginia Plan, which arguably would have let the Federal government regulate any activity with interstate spillover. In other words, the Founders made the deliberate decision to leave many activities with spillover effects to the states.
Not included in this power to regulate commerce “across state lines” is the authority to regulate activites that are non-economic or solely INTRAstate, which the language of Virginia’s Instrastate Commerce Act addresses.
NO!
With the passage of a bill like HB1438, Virginia would become the first state to reject in one fell swoop the ludicrous and intellectually dishonest constitutional rationale that underpins so much federal activity, and reclaim the rightful authority to regulate commerce within its own borders.
Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect that a number of other states will attempt to resist this federal overreach with similar legislation in 2011.
*******
CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Intrastate Commerce Act Legislative Tracking page
CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s model legislation, the Intrastate Commerce Act. We encourage you to send it to your state reps and senators and urge them to introduce and support this bill.
I hate Virginia!! its like the worst state ever! you enslave black people to much… >:(
If I may, sir, there are two problems with the constitutionality of this bill. The first is that it specifically exempts these goods from the commerce clause. Regardless of what interpretation anyone may have of that particular clause, there is absolutely no legal precedent stating that a law can create exemptions to a higher law. As the order goes Constitution>federal law>state law, you can see where the glaring error is. The second is the other part of that sentence regarding federal law and regulation. If you see the above order of importance, federal law is above state law, as specifically stated by the Supremacy Clause. Therefore, regardless of your or the Commonwealth's opinion on the constitutionality of those laws, the only people who can remove those laws are the Congress, and the Supreme Court via judicial review. For the Commonwealth to attempt to due so is just as unconstitutional, if not more so since no interpretation of the Constitution (or its position in the government) would allow this.
In 1791, Thomas Jefferson stated that Congress was not granted any authority over commerce within the several States:
"T]he power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a state, [that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen], which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another state, or with foreign nations, or with Indian tribes."
Well I guess, since Regulate means, "make regular", in the commerce clause then a well regulated militia means a regular militia and the states can not regulate my right to bear arms. Funny how a word means one thing in the Bill of Rights and another in the Constitution. They will say what they want it to say. Screw them. The Constitution is not for legal scholars, it was written as a citizens guide to his/her government. Revolution anyone? We came here to chew bubblegum and to kick ass and we are all out of bubblegum. http://www.newamerica-now.blogspot.com
Michael, please help me think through somethig. This initiative, similar to the Firearms Freedom Act, in my opinion in not altogether a good thing. The way it appears to me is any state passing this type legislation almost by default, cedes their powers to the federal government to regulate everything else that moves in the country. IOW, these states will be giving up ground to the federal government never intended by our Founders.
I've heard it put another way: The purpose of the commerce clause was to cede the federal government the power to assure the states made nice with each other, NOT to regulate every activity known to man.
Regards,
This page is blocked from Facebook, thugs at work again…
I believe that because the word State is capitalized is significant and means between state governments, NOT the People of the states. If the commerce clause meant between the People of the several states, then why isn't the word People anywhere in the commerce clause. Because it was not meant to allow congress the power to regulate commerce between the People, just the several States, not states!
I agree. That power can only be applied to states themselves such as the laws they might pass to impede trade.