February 20, 2006

I recently received a phone call from a friend who was watching the evening news. He said the commentator was discussing the rural church fires in Alabama and the story included an interview with an agent from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. My friend was confused by the federal government's involvement in the case and wanted to know how fires on private property in Alabama had anything to do with the constitutional powers of the federal government. I told him there could only be one answer---God must be engaged in interstate commerce.

The following day an article in our local newspaper stated the fires were being investigated as a potential federal hate crime under the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996. Since so-called federal hate crime legislation within the several States is the result of the United States Supreme Court unconstitutionally re-writing the Constitution from the bench, I knew my suspicions concerning the commerce clause were correct. The introduction for the Church Arson Prevention Act states:

"The Congress finds the following:

(1) The incidence of arson or other destruction or vandalism of places of religious worship, and the incidence of violent interference with an individual's lawful exercise or attempted exercise of the right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship pose a serious national problem.

(2) The incidence of arson of places of religious worship has recently increased, especially in the context of places of religious worship that serve predominantly African-American congregations.

(3) Changes in Federal law are necessary to deal properly with this problem.

(4) Although local jurisdictions have attempted to respond to the challenges posed by such acts of destruction or damage to religious property, the problem is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in scope to warrant Federal intervention to assist State and local jurisdictions.

(5) Congress has authority, pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to make acts of destruction or damage to religious property a violation of Federal law." 1

The purpose of the commerce clause, as intended by the Founders, was to protect commerce from taxation and other interference on the part of the States. It was basically a free trade provision. It granted Congress the power to make regular, or normalize, commerce between the States.

With the aid of the federal judiciary, Congress has usurped the original intent of the Framers and expanded the power of the federal government to unparalleled heights. Under the umbrella of the commerce clause, the federal government is attempting to obliterate the system of limited government established by the Constitution and control every aspect of human existence in these United States. This clause is now the "constitutional" basis for a multitude of federal regulatory schemes for everything from civil rights to gun control. It has also been used to unconstitutionally expand the federal government's criminal jurisdiction over the people of the several States.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no provision in the Constitution that grants the federal government any general interstate criminal jurisdiction. In fact, the word "interstate" does not appear in the Constitution. If an individual commits, or has been charged with a crime in one State, and flees to another State, he shall, upon demand from the executive (Governor) pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, be returned to the State from which he fled. If committing a crime and crossing state lines was a legitimate federal offense, then what purpose would a special provision serve if the federal government had been granted general interstate criminal jurisdiction in each and every case? Such a power would be in direct conflict with this provision and cause one provision of the Constitution to negate another.

It should also be noted that if Congress had been granted interstate criminal jurisdiction, not only would the power be enumerated in the Constitution like the other powers granted to the federal government, but there would be a record from the debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 where this grant of power was proposed and debated. A review of the proceedings from the Convention shows that no such power was ever proposed let alone granted. From a constitutional standpoint, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 is a general denial of federal interstate criminal jurisdiction.

In his 1908 book entitled "Federal Usurpation," Franklin Pierce wrote the following concerning the so-called interstate commerce clause:

"It was the desire for freedom of commerce among the States which inspired this provision as to interstate commerce in the Constitution, and all early cases so indicate."

"But today times have changed and the customs have changed. To-day government goes roaming at will upon a boundless sea without chart or compass, seeking power wherever it can find it, with little reference to the limitations of the Constitution."

"In short, the national government, with few delegated powers, is going back to the old world views of the functions of government, and, through the interstate commerce act, is establishing a Federal police power which follows the footsteps of every citizen by licenses and restraining laws into every avenue of life, and practically supplants the police powers reserved to the states."

"We are all well acquainted with what is known as the police powers of the state. The states originally possessed entire control of laws affecting public morality, public health, and all laws of a similar nature of so many descriptions as to be hardly capable of enumerating. It delegated none of these powers to the United States government. To put that fact beyond question the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, expressly reserving such powers, were passed."

Pierce warned that the federal government would eventually "assume control of all police powers of the States, and will attempt, under the commerce clause, to legislate upon many subjects which heretofore have been controlled only by state legislation."

During the past 100 years, Congress has done exactly what Mr. Pierce predicted. Instead of resisting the federal government's gross usurpations of power, the States and the American people have stood by idly and allowed the federal government to use the commerce clause to give itself control over ever aspect American life. The States are on the verge of being reduced to geographical locations as the federal government continues to use the commerce clause to expand its power and strip the States of their powers.

Instead of castigating federal politicians and running them out of town with pitch forks for their blatant usurpations of power, the American people reward them with campaign contributions and re-election to office. And to add insult to injury, the American people are so constitutionally challenged that they beg federal politicians to expand their usurpations through more unconstitutional laws like the Church Arson Prevention Act.

Too many Americans take their freedoms for granted and are unwilling to educate themselves on the Constitution. An uninformed populace is incapable of preserving liberty.

There is an old adage that people get the government they deserve. I predict that the commerce clause will be the vehicle that delivers the chains that binds the freedoms of the American people and consumes the powers of the States. Unfortunately, most Americans, who have become accustomed to federal usurpations of power, will never know the difference.

Footnotes-

1-The introduction to this legislation also states: "(6) Congress has authority, pursuant to section 2 of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, to make actions of private citizens motivated by race, color, or ethnicity that interfere with the ability of citizens to hold or use religious property without fear of attack, violations of Federal criminal law." Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce section 1 of the Amendment. Section 1 states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Since Church fires do not constitute slavery or involuntary servitude, this assertion of federal authority is total rubbish and nothing but another attempt to unconstitutionally expand federal power.

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the consitution. Mr Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

Archives

The ·2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

Would the Montana Firearms Freedom Act Stop Federal Usurpation of Power under the Commerce Clause?

The States Still have the Power to Control their Federal Government

Does the Federal Government have the Constitutional Authority to the Abrogate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Through a Treaty?

Schwarzenegger has the Power but does he have the Testicular Fortitude to Secure California's Border?

It is the Duty of the States to Protect Your Rights

Constitutional Hypocrisy and the Flag Desecration Amendment

The Stars and the Stripes is the States' Flag

The Flag Desecration Amendment Violates the First Amendment

The Federal Government is using the General Welfare Clause to Steal your Money

Democrats Play the Commerce Clause Card at Robert's Confirmation Hearing

Alito Strikes Out in First at Bat for Team Supreme Court

The Victims of the Public School System Guide to the Bill of Rights

The Forgotten Militia Amendment: The Real Collective Right Amendment

"The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" Misrepresents the Effect of the Sixteenth Amendment

Does the Constitution Grant the Federal Government the Power to Legislate over Land within the Several States?

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade