• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Constitutional Amendment 28

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

Further limiting the power of congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations but limited to nothing more than import and export tariffs, so long as tariff costs do not become prohibitive or greater than 8% of the cost of each individual item. Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states but limited to regulating taxes placed on items shipped to other states, taxes on how those items are moved from state to state, and taxes on sales of those items in other states after shipping, but none of these taxes can be prohibitive and no laws shall be made that prohibit possession by any fee citizen in any state. Congress shall no longer have power to regulate commerce with any Indian tribe. Commerce with Indian tribes will now be relegated to the states.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,866
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:
Further limiting the power of congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations but limited to nothing more than import and export tariffs, so long as tariff costs do not become prohibitive or greater than 8% of the cost of each individual item. Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states but limited to regulating taxes placed on items shipped to other states, taxes on how those items are moved from state to state, and taxes on sales of those items in other states after shipping, but none of these taxes can be prohibitive and no laws shall be made that prohibit possession by any fee citizen in any state. Congress shall no longer have power to regulate commerce with any Indian tribe. Commerce with Indian tribes will now be relegated to the states.
Hmmmm... I don't really care to have anyone regulating commerce, period.

The import/export tariff portion is good ("Free the Roquefort!")

This amendment would allow states to tax items shipped to or from other states, subject to Congressional regulation; this is currently prohibited by the Constitution, and you better believe that powerful congressmen would create a crazy patchwork quilt of interstate tariffs to reward their supporters and punish their opponents.

Combine that with the proposed authority of states to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, and I can see all sorts of punitive taxes and tariffs on tobacco products, gambling, agricultural products, and everything else various tribes are involved with. Especially if those products move interstate and threaten to undercut the in-state producers.
 

Dom

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
imported post

I don't want to see Congress "regulate" interstate commerce at all and more importantly they shouldn't touch intrastate commerce (like in Wickard v. Filburn http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html)

However, the control over international commerce seems prudent. For example, I wouldn't want ebola infected monkeys or sarin laced peanut butter imported into the country...I don't think an 8% tax would prohibit that.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

I agree, I'd like to see the commerce clause completely repealed. States are more than able to fairly conduct commerce between them without oversight from the federal government.

The amendment could read:
"Clause 3 of Section 8 of Article 1 of this Constitution shall be stricken. Congress has no authority to regulate commerce. Individual states, Indian nations, and foreign nations are to be free to establish commerce and regulation regarding commerce between one another as is agreeable to the particular parties involved."
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Without commerce being regulated on a federal level, it would be such a twisted pile of BS. Let's say I want to buy a hat from england. I order my hat, which is then flown in to canada, then new mexico, then virginia, then off to california, then out to louisiana, then over to florida, and finally up here to idaho. Why? Because the tariffs and taxes make that the cheapest route, due to each state negotiating separately! Or perhaps CA gets ticked off with Nevada, so they jack up the taxes on goods coming from there, so now nevada gets shafted due to the CA economy being so much stronger.

Just an example of what could happen in an extreme situation should each state negotiate on it's own. We're not 50 small countries, we're one country with 50 states. Sadly, our federal government has grown out of control, and that needs to be brought back down, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't provide a valuable function.
 

CJ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
76
Location
VT, AK, ,
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
Without commerce being regulated on a federal level, it would be such a twisted pile of BS. Let's say I want to buy a hat from england. I order my hat, which is then flown in to canada, then new mexico, then virginia, then off to california, then out to louisiana, then over to florida, and finally up here to idaho. Why? Because the tariffs and taxes make that the cheapest route, due to each state negotiating separately! Or perhaps CA gets ticked off with Nevada, so they jack up the taxes on goods coming from there, so now nevada gets shafted due to the CA economy being so much stronger.

Just an example of what could happen in an extreme situation should each state negotiate on it's own. We're not 50 small countries, we're one country with 50 states. Sadly, our federal government has grown out of control, and that needs to be brought back down, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't provide a valuable function.

The reason for the interstate commerce clause was as you stated, one state taxing or banning imports from another. That can be easily fixed by forbidding such actions by the states towards each other, while also forbidding the feds from regulating interstate commerce.

And we are a union of 50 countries which may declare independence at any time they desire. Now the federal government has grown too powerful and likely wouldn't just allow that but that's how it was intended to be...
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

The free market would police that, all by itself. If a state has poor tariffs and regulations, other states don't do business with it. So say California is trying to soak the rest of the country on car imports from Asia, Oregon sees an opportunity to take a significant share of that market by instituting lax regulations and low tariffs.

States won't do well trying to hose other states. It would be much as international trading is now. Countries that try to enact protectionist tariffs usually end up lifting them when they realize that other countries will not buy their exports.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

CJ wrote:
NightOwl wrote:
Without commerce being regulated on a federal level, it would be such a twisted pile of BS. Let's say I want to buy a hat from england. I order my hat, which is then flown in to canada, then new mexico, then virginia, then off to california, then out to louisiana, then over to florida, and finally up here to idaho. Why? Because the tariffs and taxes make that the cheapest route, due to each state negotiating separately! Or perhaps CA gets ticked off with Nevada, so they jack up the taxes on goods coming from there, so now nevada gets shafted due to the CA economy being so much stronger.

Just an example of what could happen in an extreme situation should each state negotiate on it's own. We're not 50 small countries, we're one country with 50 states. Sadly, our federal government has grown out of control, and that needs to be brought back down, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't provide a valuable function.

The reason for the interstate commerce clause was as you stated, one state taxing or banning imports from another. That can be easily fixed by forbidding such actions by the states towards each other, while also forbidding the feds from regulating interstate commerce.

And we are a union of 50 countries which may declare independence at any time they desire. Now the federal government has grown too powerful and likely wouldn't just allow that but that's how it was intended to be...

That's how it's always been. We've already had one war to that effect. The states might have the right to declare independence, but at that point the federal government has the ability to decide to reinstate them as a state via military action.

Slayer, the free market would to a degree. However, due to some states having powerful economies, and others not having anything that can compete, the stronger could effectively get away with import taxes, while the smaller economies would have to have lower in an effort to build up.

Anyhow, I just don't think it's a great idea regardless.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Be careful of what you wish for, you may just get it. Anything that seeks to limit the 10th Amendment is bad, bad, bad. It may be good for one state but is probably bad for the other 49.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

CJ wrote:
And we are a union of 50 countries which may declare independence at any time they desire. Now the federal government has grown too powerful and likely wouldn't just allow that but that's how it was intended to be...

+1...

it amazes me how much I hear this sentiment from other folks now... and it also gives me hope...
 
Top