Not so keen on what the Constitution says. I feel arguing about it is a dead end. For as Lysander Spooner pointed out, the Constitution must either have condoned the crimes of government, or have been powerless to stop them.
Rather, what we should concern ourselves with is right reason, and with liberty itself. Appreciate the document auesthetically because it (or one interpretation of it) recognizes these ideals, but argue from the ideals themselves and not from the document.
Few words better describe these "living document" types than "fascists". Supreme central authority over the individuals in the name of the nation's well being was the very essence of fascism.
What this comes down to, is that the Founding Fathers failed to foresee and completely integrated economy, they drafted a Constitution in too simplistic terms to be effectively applied without controversy. Our economy is simply too complex to be regulated in the simplistic terms the Founding Fathers established. Pt. 3
@Caduenas "Our economy is too complex to be regulated..."
You've never taken an economics class, have you? The market economy is a largely self-regulating organism, and most attempts to regulate it or steer it in a certain direction almost always backfire. We would do well to heed the founders wisdom and original intent by restoring the rule of law, rather than ignorantly claim that the founders "failed to foresee" what the modern economy would be like.
Just look at Raich, Kennedy and Scalia gave a big "fuck you" to any progress they made during Lopez and Morrison, and these are conservatives we are talking about here.
Eastman is not being careful with describing what commerce meant during the time of the funding fathers. At the time of the funding fathers "commerce" meant "intercourse", that is, interactions, exchanges, interrelated activities, and movements back and forth, including, for example, travel, social connection or conversation. 2
Both Eastman and Chemerinsky are very smart men, and sadly, they both have good points. The Commerce Clause as interpreted between 1937 and 1995 does give Congress a ridiculous amount of power to regulate commerce (and then some). The decisions in Lopez and Morrison are a move forward, but it's hypocritical to adjudicate this to the conservative wing of the Court. Part I
Funny thing about 8:45 is, if health care becomes part of the jurisdiction of the government, and what you choose to eat affects your health, then we're just one justification away from "what you choose to eat" no longer being a personal liberty. After all, if you want to eat foods that are deemed unhealthy by the state, then it costs the state extra to take care of you. You are subversively undermining the financial wellbeing of the nation, and you can be branded a traitor to the people.
I have a question. Im trying to figure out examples on what can be done in the commerce clause and what cant be.
Like when I first hear of the clause, I assume that states cant put tariffs on other states. I also figured it meant it could regulate things which a state can state with another state.
So does this mean if a product is currently not being traded by state to state then government cant regulate it?
"It's not a freedom to not have medical care." Translation: You are not free to spend your money or not spend your money as you see fit. Government can force you simply b/c of the fact that you exist to purchase a good or service.
The act of driving ON PUBLIC ROADS is a privilege that the state can regulate. You generally don't need a license or insurance to drive entirely on your own private property.
Taxes needing to be proportional to population was overridden by the 16th amendment. Congress is unfortunately no longer constitutionally prohibited from passing any sort of income tax it likes. Of course those without any source of income would have to be exempt from an extra tax imposed for not having health insurance.
If Judges at every level use Constitutional Law (Conservative ideology), "We the People" will come out victorious.
But, If the same Judges use Case Law (Progressive ideology and IMHO un-constitutional and against the will of the people), we will faulter in our efforts.
Why did Obama once again bow to the insurance companies? The Afffordable Health Care Act claims a very large % of business do not offer healthcare so under 26 qualify. Then it allows a waiver for companies to offer 3rd World Country $1000 year hospitalization coverage (suppose to be $750,000) just so they won't qualify unless they don't work & co's get a break.What a freaking joke. He is all glitter & fake action.Look at the unemployment rate, 3rd world again. Why did I vote for him? Not again!
"All of the sudden you get Wickard," uhhh...he missed NLRB, Darby, West Coast Parish, etc. Furthermore, Wickard could have been overturned several times, he mentions Lopez and Morrison, what an asshole. At least, he squares away Raich with this. He should take up Raich with Scalia, though. The government CAN force you to do something, ask a boomer or Ollie's bar-b-que.
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Take the blue pill and remain cross-eyed, or take the red pill and read "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution". Then you'll just get a glimpse as to how far the rabbit hole goes. The commerce clause, "necessary and proper", implied powers, and all the trappings of a central government out of control. The seeds were sown as soon as the ink was dry.
Ok, so you've obviously never heard of the FDA or EPA. It's also obvious that it does not occur to you that some taxpayers like it because the extra tax they pay for healthcare is less than they would pay for health insurance in the US, except for the super-rich
and I know you probably think the rich should not be taxed at all and that the poor should rot in the streets, so this discussion is pointless, its going nowhere.
I see no reason the CONCEPT of putting the responsibility of health care on the government is viewed as socialist. If you have a legitimate argument saying nations with nationalized systems have it bad, please link to a credible source in support of your claim.
what is the difference between a public option in healthcare and a public option in higher education. is Ohio STATE University a commie sleeper cell?
First of all, health care reform bill is NOT "nationalized healthcare" there is nothing near a single-payer system because of this legislation, as much as I wish the US had a single-payer system. All it does is change what insurance health care providers are allowed to do.
The force to buy insurance measure is a good idea.
I see no reason why health care shouldn't be the responsibility of the government
@kbthiede Since you think Government-run once-size-fits-all health care is so wonderful, may I buy you a one-way ticket to the UK? Cuba? Canada? While the HCR bill may not formally be "nationalized", it moves the ball further down the field towards that goal. The Federal Government has no authority to dictate what a company must provide, in this case what limitations are included in their policies. It is not governments' responsibility to provide health care. You like being a slave?
i have only heard good things about the single-payer systems from people who live in countries that benefit from them.
i have a problem with people saying this bill is nationalized healthcare because its not true I WISH we could move forward and get that goin for us, just like most of the modern world put in place a while ago.
i bet you think the govt has no right regulating the safety of the food that we buy either, or it has no right to punish polluters. its the same concept.
@kbthiede I suspect you could find only those who say "good things about the single-payer systems" just like any other topic or policy. That doesn't make it Constitutional - and that is our metric, not how much some people like that program. Your counter-argument is a straw man. Food safety laws and pollution laws pass Constitutional muster while forcing me to buy an insurance policy does not. I can buy food from the local farmer, if I so choose, with no FDA or USDA oversight.
-I understand the Constitution does not allow for nationalized health care, it also didn't allow for the prohibition of slavery until some forward thinking people amended it. I think allowing nationalized hc would be a good amendment.
-My belief in that is reinforced by the many positive thing i have heard about such systems abroad.
-You said "The Federal Government has no authority to dictate what a company must provide" I was saying the govt does so to other companies no problem.
@kbthiede If the supporters of nationalized health care want to codify that in the Constitution then they can go through the process of Amending it. At least then you'd be following the law rather than inventing it. Please stop with the "systems abroad" canard - it proves nothing. And please cite the dictates of the Federal Gov't on what a private company must provide - other than when it refers to a legal product, under the Commerce Clause.
The biggest problems this country face are ivey league aristocrats like Erwin Chemerinsky or even Cass Sunstein. These harvard jew bastards will screw us every way they can.
@fireteamforfreedom you are a retard. hes one of the foremost scholars in constitutional law in the country and is highly respected by both democrats and republicans. fucking ignorant
No more Smack-a-Mole. We need to Dismember that which goes against Liberty. We need to elect brave confident & competent Representatives that will dismember the Tyrant.. Sever the Arms, Legs, and Head and remove incumbents that won't fall in line with plan.
Incumbents &/or Prospects for the House & Senate must pass these questions:
1. "Will you support &/or move to repeal the 16th & 17th amendments of the Constitution & cut off the arms of the Tyrant to restore property rights & state's rights?"
2. "Will you cut off the Legs of the Tyrant by supporting &/or moving for amending the Constitution to define &/or remove the Commerce Clause and Necessary Clause, restoring Liberty to the people?
3. Will you sever the Head of the Tyrant by supporting &/or moving to abolish the Federal Reserve to restore sound money to the people?
If they can't support these remedies they need to be marked as weak &/or incompetent or as too cowardly to carry out what must be done to restore our Republic.
Nothing Less than these remedies will restore our Republic to it's prosperous state. We must choose our Representatives wisely in these matters. Sever the Arms, Legs & Head of this Tyrant that has crept in, & the rest will fall in place.
Severing the Arms & Legs should precede beheading the beast, so the economy may stabilize & the steady flow of goods & services amongst the states may not be frustrated by any destructive actions, by the Federal Reserve while anticipating it's severance.
I'd like to ask a question, that hopefully, someone will answer intelligently, without a lot of vague partisanship and hostility; disguised rhetoric: as of now, the massive cost of unpaid health care from uninsured recipients, absorbed by the taxpayer over time is a problem...would requiring people to pay, to not be a liability in that sense be the worst solution? It's a little convoluted, I'll admit..but if it gets suffering people covered and starts to fill a hole in the economy? Send me info
I'd like to ask a question, that hopefully, someone will answer intelligently, without a lot of vague partisanship and hostility; disguised rhetoric: as of now, the massive cost of unpaid health care from uninsured recipients, absorbed by the taxpayer over time is a problem...would requiring people to pay, to not be a liability in that sense be the worst solution? It's a little convoluted, I'll admit...but if it gets suffering people covered and starts to fill a hole in the economy? Send me info
It has been somewhat of an open argument about whether the commerce clause allows the government to make any law it wants or to allow government to make laws to carry out their specific duties defined therein. It seems like the government wants "any and whatever" law they want to pass as part of their duties. This is wrong an damages the people. This open argument must END. Congress must force the issue to correct this open argument problem once & for all. It must be defined to serve the people
Oh hoho, great comeback, cocksucker. The guy is a douche who interprets the constitution to mean what he wants it to mean, not what is was meant to be. He's a cunt and so are you for defending him.
Wow, the premise of this video is so hollow and mean-spirited. Reason and Austin Bragg owe Chemerinsky an apology for interviewing him seemingly under false pretenses: to use cut-up 2-3 second clips against sinister-sounding music in order to portray him as some kind of apologist for an evil government conspiracy.
The Supreme Court was forced to so broadly (and yes, BADLY) interpret the commerce clause because we (Americans....humans?) were too greedy and selfish to sustain some semblance of fairness and good will in the working wages and conditions in the years leading up to the new deal. SCOTUS was doing a fine job striking down federal laws that meddled w/ completely intrastate commerce, then we fooked it all up. It's was our fault then, and it's our fault now. RIP, commerce clause. & Sorry, TJ :*(
wheat as you want. our founders are weeping somewhere as they watch a nation founded on economic and religious liberty get swept away by the all-knowing and all-compassionate state.
once a case like Filburn gets decided it isn't a far leap for congress to tell Americans what kind of car they have to buy or that they need to buy health insurance...oh wait we already have that.
the SCOTUS decision against farmer Roscoe Filburn in 1942 is in my mind one of the most egregious violations of SCOTUS in our history. it upheld that congress can do virtually anything it wants to any sector of an economy as long as it can tie it somehow to interstate trade.
in that case Filburn wanted to grow more than the 11 acres of wheat he was allowed to under the Ag Adjustment Act and use the extra wheat on his farm. sorry said the SCOTUS you don't even have the freedom to produce as much
Interesting how the Commerce Clause should be used to prevent Arizona trade barriers because of S.B. 1070 but instead perverts it's meaning for the use of socialism.
So if I grew my own vegetables to cut costs on food the government can take over?Damn.There goes that idea...
Oh well.They can continue to supply me with food stamps(along with the millions of other families) and pretend to be dumbfounded when they see that the tax dollars are "vanishing".
I like Reason, and I like this video, but I think it's absurd that Americans argue about the technicalities of something written on hemp paper a few hundred years ago while ignoring the vastly more important ethical issue. Why should the state have the right to regulate ANYTHING? A person's business is theirs alone, no matter what effect they can be said to have on commerce. They should be completely free to do their business no matter what congress, states or constitutions say about it.
I listen to "the smart guys" all the time on the Hugh Hewitt show. So nice to finally see what they look like. Very distinguished (but older than they sounded on radio).
I'm normally such a rational (and peaceful) person, but Erwin Chemerinsky's very demeanor makes me want to fly out to Cali and stomp his goddamn face into the fucking dirt. How can he be so smugly statist? How can he make pretenses to rationality as he justifies unlimited power for an explicitly limited form of government?
Fuck I just want to slap his crooked eye straight.
@032125 What I find frightening in my closest yet liberal friends is their belief that govt will all ways do the right thing, will keep us from harm either from within ourselves or from without, and all failing to recognize the absolute absurdity of those concepts!
The question remains, can the commerce clause be restored to its rightful place? Seems to me we are far beyond the point where that is possible... One would have to repeal countless laws already in effect.
I think its time to just move. The beauty of America and the American Constitution has been lost. We have The Patriot Act and countless other things (like idiots who say "Who cares what the founders meant") Lets just leave.
There's another difference between the auto insurance mandate and healthcare one. STATES imposed this on their own, one by one (47). However, the healthcare mandate is FEDERAL, and it could very well be a violation of the 10th Amendment as well as the other constitutional issues.
And btw, does Chemerinsky forget the power and ROLE of state governments to regulate within their borders? Does he just think state gov'ts shouldn't regulate and let the feds do it all? LOL
If the Commerce Clause was supposed to give Congress the ability to regulate ALL aspects of the economy, why even have a Commerce Clause??? It would be ASSUMED by Congress that they could regulate anything. Is that REALLY what the Founders wanted, Mr. Chemerinsky?
@Ovedya2006 I'm not saying that the government (without regard to party) hasn't made a hash of things, but it's not as wild west as the video makes it out to be.
I think it's as REAL as the video makes it out to be. The Health Care Reform law is unconstitutional. If not on the grounds that it violates the Commerce Clause, but on the grounds that it's a direct tax, which is unconstitutional. That point made at 7:45
@Ovedya2006 So do you believe what the video says or not? Because if you think it's amok as you describe then the court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be constitutional making the health care reform constitutional. Or do you think the Commerce Clause should be overturned?
@lactoseintolerant That doesn't follow. The Court's rulings with regard to the Constitutionality of actions of the government using the Commerce clause should be overturned. That point is also made in the video. What is needed is Constitutional reform, not a repeal of the Commerce Clause altogether.
@Ovedya2006 Sorry, but realistically that probably isn't going to happen. In my estimation something like the Commerce Clause is going to be extremely difficult to reform. What do I know though.
I'm not exactly sure what the producer of the video had in mind. I clicked through because I've read some of Chemerinsky's stuff. And I still don't think it's as bad as reason.tv makes it sound. I suppose it makes for good interweb fodder.
@lactoseintolerant Which is exactly why the confirmation of Kagan was so important. The Congressman asked a perfectly valid question with regard to toe Commerce Clause. What prevents Congress from mandating ANYTHING that has to do with American consumption of goods & services in this country? Liberal interpretations of the Constitution, and judgments arising from those interpretations ARE very hard to reverse, and most times don't get reversed.
@lactoseintolerant Congress confers its power from the electorate - the people - and it is restricted by the Constitution. We already know that he Congress is steamrolling the will of the American people for the sake of special insterests. Now - for the past decade or so, and increasingly, the Judiciary is dismantling the Constitutional restrictions through liberal interpretations. The state of the Republic is in decline because of it. The time for complacency is over!
@lactoseintolerant Yes, I too am upset that the subtleties of 230+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence were not adequately addressed in this 10 minute video.
I remember being in law school and just being shocked at how the liberal professors thought nothing of trampling the Constitution via the commerce clause and international law.
From law school experience, I was taught both sides of every legal issue -- EXCEPT in constitutional law. I was taught only the "living document" view and nothing about original intent or contract views. I found it after graduating and it made so much more sense, though I was a Democrat at that time. Now everything else has come around and I am a conservative.
In my opinion the "intent" of the founders shouldn't matter when interpreting the Constitution and the subsequent 27 amendments, but rather the meaning of the words used in the clause.
@endisnighe Sorry I should have clarified, the meaning of the words at the time of the writing, which can easily be gotten by Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. Why? Because it was the most widely used English dictionary at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Concerning the 2nd Amendment (which you brought up) and the Commerce clause (the entire point of ReasonTV's video) congress has interpreted the meaning of each incorrectly to fit their agendas.
@llamalord111 Don't get too wrapped up in the "meaning vs intent" semantics game. I know that some Founders had differing intentions, but you must study what ideas were accepted and which were rejected at the 1787 Convention before dismissing the intent of every Founder on every issue. You must also consider how the Constitution was understood by those who did the actual ratifying in each state.
@MrPloppy1 The reason I choose to go with the meaning rather than the intent like you mentioned is that the founders had different intents for what the nation would become. I will definitely take your advice and read up on the convention thanks for the advice :)
This IS the most important concept to understand and decide upon. A true libertarian has the original intent concept philosophy. Saving the Constitution is our best chance against the New World Order totalitarian takeover.
"I do solemnly swear that I WILL support and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC"
I wonder if the sum of the UC Irvine professor’s comments qualifies him as a DOMESTIC ENEMY? That aside I wonder, what action (in his scholarly opinion) would be appropriate based on the word DEFEND? I suppose he would be OK with us making up its meaning. All's fair right professor?
Why do people like this Irvine guy look at the State as a god? "Don't restrict my god! My god can do whatever it wants! How dare you defy my god! Sedition!"
@Wilbur665 That may be, but not knowing him otherwise and considering the fact that he is in the school of law he does an amazing job in this video of enlightening us of how the American Gov't views the clause, the governments perspective on these issues and laws etc. Yeah he is still a doucher.
Chemerinsky gives me a real bad vibe, and he totally looks like a candy-ass bitch. Little punk never got an ass-whipping as a child and now he thinks his shit doesn't stink.
these people are supposed to be working for us not us working for them and they have better benefits better pay and a lifetime job. we need to get the lifers out of there and put some new people in there people that are going to work for us and let us get back Our Rights.
There's reason it states "Foreign nations","States", and "Indian tribes", because they were the only class of entities which existed, equal and independent from the other concerning commerce and federal power. Judicial review by a handful of men has allowed compete intrusion within the "States". What is the Health Reform Act? Yep, inclusion of the Indian tribes, or rather intrusion establishing federal power of commerce over the tribes.
Just as there is reason there is constant differentiation between "United States", "States", and "the People" in regards to powers concerning the republic. Taxation power under "General welfare" is given only for support of the "United States", not the states nor the people.
So according to the 'living document' folks, that part in Article 1 Section 8 To regulate commerce with foreign nations... using the same logic that they use means the US government can tell foreign nations how to regulate their commerce in a foreign land.
wow, this taught a lot more about US government than 4 years of high school. Yes, it does take an opinion about certain things, but its so direct that it is hard to argue against.
It really comes down to an understanding of the true nature of what the United States were designed by the Constitution to be--a FEDERATION of sovereign STATES (nations) where each state ceded some specificly enumerated powers to a common general government.
It's no wonder people think the Constitution is confusing, they look at this "one nation under God, indivisible" and think that is what the Constitution created. It didn't. It's like owning a car, but having the manual for a motorcycle.
I really hope when the board of administrators at UC sees what Erwin Chemerisnky really believes, they'll throw him out of their Law School. I mean, the guy openly admitted to not believing in the rule of law when he said we shouldn't be bound by the constitution. This is what he wants to teach for future adjudicators. What a joke.
While I am not a libertarian, when I was in law school I thought I was the only one disturbed by the extent of the expansion of the CC. Lopez was decided after I graduated, so you can imagine my relief.
Still, it bothers me to this day the bland acceptance by Constitutional scholars of the expansion of Congressional power.
While I am not a libertarian, when I was in law school I thought I was the only one disturbed by the extent of the expansion of the CC. Lopez was decided after I graduated, so you can imagine my relief.
Still, it bothers me to this day the bland acceptance by Constitutional scholars of the expansion of Congressional power.
Are we a Republic anymore? It seems that the Constitution has been slipping away. We need to elect more Libertarians and get our system back to what the Founders set out. Don't be afraid to vote Libertarian! Send a real message to Washington!
@KreativeKeyLLC The constitution is great, but as along as the government interprets it and enforces it then they can break it as much as they want without consequence.
@gravebaiting Your statement is too cryptic for me. The Constitution has been interpreted poorly by people who wish to destroy the United States from the inside. They have been funded by outside sources. Too disturbing because we have real Americans supporting it blindly duped into thinking that we are just doing it to become more "politically correct" & have "sustainable communities" or "The Dream Act." Hope. Change. The Commerce Clause abused like a red-headed step child. True insanity.
Minute 6:25: This is what Rand Paul was talking about and I agree. Repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act. The Federal gov should not be allowed to tell private business who they can and cannot serve. Today's use of the Commerce Clause will allow the FDA to regulate our backyard farms, to allow the feds to force us to make our homes green before we can sell them... to continue to prevent us from doing with out bodies what we want. Who's life is it anyway?
@sallyoboyle Rand just talked about it being unneseccary and overreaching, but has said that he has no intent nor was it ever part of his campaign platform to repeal any part of the Civil Rights Act. He was mearly using that as an example of how government grabs power they should not.
Chemerinsky was becoming uncomfortable with his position. He knows he is in the wrong, but he sticks with it like other Statists, because it fits with his world view. They don't care what the Constitution states, and work to try to create convoluted arguments to make us believe the Constitution agrees with their agenda.
There's not a freedom to not have medical care? LOLWUT
That guy's the dean of a law school, but it doesn't sound like he has a critically-thinking bone in his body. All he believes is what the Supreme Court ITSELF says. "The Supreme Court this" "Supreme Court that" KNOCK IT OFF WITH THAT CRAP! I don't CARE what the SCOTUS said; I care what's actually constitutional. Whoever said the Supreme Court is always right?
@whoo689 Exactly. And the blaring evidence is given when one SCOTUS overturns a precedent of a previous panel of SCOTUS, in effect saying that the previous SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional.
Chemerinsky wrote my Constitutional Law book -- I knew he was evil back then and now I know it for sure!
But seriously, in that class, I saw that the commerce clause did, in fact, give Congress the power to regulate almost anything. It's been abused, no doubt, but people don't hold Congress accountable -- we may say it's wrong, we may have something against it, but we keep re-electing incumbents.
The solution is to make this an issue and stop re-electing those who perpetuate the abuse!
@jmatt926 Perfectly said. PEOPLE need to understand the general populace makes the government. If we keep electing these cock-eyed fast talking losers, give them the backing of the police and military, the keys to our treasury, and the ability to write the laws that we should live by, they're going to (and are currently working to) crash this country.
Not so keen on what the Constitution says. I feel arguing about it is a dead end. For as Lysander Spooner pointed out, the Constitution must either have condoned the crimes of government, or have been powerless to stop them.
Rather, what we should concern ourselves with is right reason, and with liberty itself. Appreciate the document auesthetically because it (or one interpretation of it) recognizes these ideals, but argue from the ideals themselves and not from the document.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 weeks ago
"what we put into our body might be a personal freedom", says the brilliant collectivist Chemerinsky.
dslider1 2 weeks ago
Few words better describe these "living document" types than "fascists". Supreme central authority over the individuals in the name of the nation's well being was the very essence of fascism.
BloodskullMannoroth 2 weeks ago
Bravo to (biased)ReasonTV!
I do hope Dean Chemerinsky knew what he was getting himself into when he agreed to share opinions for such an IMPARTIAL video!
jasonjia123 1 month ago
@jasonjia123 He wasn't taken out of context was he? Obviously ReasonTV has a bias towards liberty, just as Chemerinsky has a bias towards tyranny.
publicanimal 4 weeks ago
What this comes down to, is that the Founding Fathers failed to foresee and completely integrated economy, they drafted a Constitution in too simplistic terms to be effectively applied without controversy. Our economy is simply too complex to be regulated in the simplistic terms the Founding Fathers established. Pt. 3
Caduenas 2 months ago
@Caduenas "Our economy is too complex to be regulated..."
You've never taken an economics class, have you? The market economy is a largely self-regulating organism, and most attempts to regulate it or steer it in a certain direction almost always backfire. We would do well to heed the founders wisdom and original intent by restoring the rule of law, rather than ignorantly claim that the founders "failed to foresee" what the modern economy would be like.
publicanimal 4 weeks ago
Just look at Raich, Kennedy and Scalia gave a big "fuck you" to any progress they made during Lopez and Morrison, and these are conservatives we are talking about here.
Eastman is not being careful with describing what commerce meant during the time of the funding fathers. At the time of the funding fathers "commerce" meant "intercourse", that is, interactions, exchanges, interrelated activities, and movements back and forth, including, for example, travel, social connection or conversation. 2
Caduenas 2 months ago
Both Eastman and Chemerinsky are very smart men, and sadly, they both have good points. The Commerce Clause as interpreted between 1937 and 1995 does give Congress a ridiculous amount of power to regulate commerce (and then some). The decisions in Lopez and Morrison are a move forward, but it's hypocritical to adjudicate this to the conservative wing of the Court. Part I
Caduenas 2 months ago
Wow, this is warped info at it's finest.
HatterMadigan 4 months ago
Bahahaha at 1:04
TheLilJavi 5 months ago
Funny thing about 8:45 is, if health care becomes part of the jurisdiction of the government, and what you choose to eat affects your health, then we're just one justification away from "what you choose to eat" no longer being a personal liberty. After all, if you want to eat foods that are deemed unhealthy by the state, then it costs the state extra to take care of you. You are subversively undermining the financial wellbeing of the nation, and you can be branded a traitor to the people.
Shanockdotcom 6 months ago
of course we can know what the orignial intent was, it was specifically worded in plain english for everyone to understand.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
I have a question. Im trying to figure out examples on what can be done in the commerce clause and what cant be.
Like when I first hear of the clause, I assume that states cant put tariffs on other states. I also figured it meant it could regulate things which a state can state with another state.
So does this mean if a product is currently not being traded by state to state then government cant regulate it?
Not sure on how to interpret this.
superlucci 6 months ago
"It's not a freedom to not have medical care." Translation: You are not free to spend your money or not spend your money as you see fit. Government can force you simply b/c of the fact that you exist to purchase a good or service.
roonalwazlib 7 months ago 3
The act of driving ON PUBLIC ROADS is a privilege that the state can regulate. You generally don't need a license or insurance to drive entirely on your own private property.
Taxes needing to be proportional to population was overridden by the 16th amendment. Congress is unfortunately no longer constitutionally prohibited from passing any sort of income tax it likes. Of course those without any source of income would have to be exempt from an extra tax imposed for not having health insurance.
magister343 8 months ago
@magister343 moving about the surface of the planet in any form shape or fashion I chose is a god given right.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
If Judges at every level use Constitutional Law (Conservative ideology), "We the People" will come out victorious.
But, If the same Judges use Case Law (Progressive ideology and IMHO un-constitutional and against the will of the people), we will faulter in our efforts.
..
MrPorterhouse 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone needs to see this.
HamsterFueledRocket 8 months ago
Why did Obama once again bow to the insurance companies? The Afffordable Health Care Act claims a very large % of business do not offer healthcare so under 26 qualify. Then it allows a waiver for companies to offer 3rd World Country $1000 year hospitalization coverage (suppose to be $750,000) just so they won't qualify unless they don't work & co's get a break.What a freaking joke. He is all glitter & fake action.Look at the unemployment rate, 3rd world again. Why did I vote for him? Not again!
HoneyMyGolden 8 months ago
"All of the sudden you get Wickard," uhhh...he missed NLRB, Darby, West Coast Parish, etc. Furthermore, Wickard could have been overturned several times, he mentions Lopez and Morrison, what an asshole. At least, he squares away Raich with this. He should take up Raich with Scalia, though. The government CAN force you to do something, ask a boomer or Ollie's bar-b-que.
HurricaneTBag 8 months ago
4:05 government crony starts to sounds like a godfather mob boss.
kayzon7 9 months ago
That vegetarians refuse to buy beef affects the price of beef in every market in the U.S.
Therefore Congress can force vegetarians to buy beef or to pay fine for not buying beef.
That's the argument the Obamaheads are making regarding mandatory medical ("health") insurance.
TruthAxe 9 months ago
Thats how Congress passes all their laws now, the Commerce Clause.
FRSFreeStateNow 10 months ago
i routing for a revolution....
adamwest456 10 months ago
stupid guy's glasses are askew
cj62392 11 months ago
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Allen West 2012
Angellicationify 11 months ago
I vote for this video.
86Meija 11 months ago
this is probably one of the best videos reason.tv has done.
anryth 11 months ago
"there's not a freedom to not have healthcare"
Ugh, statists really are insane.
boxant 1 year ago
Take the blue pill and remain cross-eyed, or take the red pill and read "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution". Then you'll just get a glimpse as to how far the rabbit hole goes. The commerce clause, "necessary and proper", implied powers, and all the trappings of a central government out of control. The seeds were sown as soon as the ink was dry.
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
Love it!
whallify 1 year ago
Rest of the country: I'm sorry we have horrible Senators here in California..
WesOKelly 1 year ago
Ok, so you've obviously never heard of the FDA or EPA. It's also obvious that it does not occur to you that some taxpayers like it because the extra tax they pay for healthcare is less than they would pay for health insurance in the US, except for the super-rich
and I know you probably think the rich should not be taxed at all and that the poor should rot in the streets, so this discussion is pointless, its going nowhere.
kbthiede 1 year ago
On a side note (since the video addresses marijuana), ending marijuana prohibition should really be a no-brainer...just like universal healthcare.
kbthiede 1 year ago
Obama is a gift from God. Obama's style has taught Americans that the Democrats don't believe in the constitution and want to move toward socialism.
mrchiefofsinners 1 year ago
It's not a freedom to not have medical care. Uh, yeah, it is. Moron.
krg159 1 year ago
@kbthiede: that reason that you don't see is called the Constituion.
crestonave 1 year ago
@crestonave
o rly? thanks for pointing that out buddy.
let me clarify...
I see no reason the CONCEPT of putting the responsibility of health care on the government is viewed as socialist. If you have a legitimate argument saying nations with nationalized systems have it bad, please link to a credible source in support of your claim.
what is the difference between a public option in healthcare and a public option in higher education. is Ohio STATE University a commie sleeper cell?
kbthiede 1 year ago
First of all, health care reform bill is NOT "nationalized healthcare" there is nothing near a single-payer system because of this legislation, as much as I wish the US had a single-payer system. All it does is change what insurance health care providers are allowed to do.
The force to buy insurance measure is a good idea.
I see no reason why health care shouldn't be the responsibility of the government
kbthiede 1 year ago
@kbthiede Since you think Government-run once-size-fits-all health care is so wonderful, may I buy you a one-way ticket to the UK? Cuba? Canada? While the HCR bill may not formally be "nationalized", it moves the ball further down the field towards that goal. The Federal Government has no authority to dictate what a company must provide, in this case what limitations are included in their policies. It is not governments' responsibility to provide health care. You like being a slave?
osimnod 1 year ago
@osimnod
i have only heard good things about the single-payer systems from people who live in countries that benefit from them.
i have a problem with people saying this bill is nationalized healthcare because its not true I WISH we could move forward and get that goin for us, just like most of the modern world put in place a while ago.
i bet you think the govt has no right regulating the safety of the food that we buy either, or it has no right to punish polluters. its the same concept.
kbthiede 1 year ago
@kbthiede I suspect you could find only those who say "good things about the single-payer systems" just like any other topic or policy. That doesn't make it Constitutional - and that is our metric, not how much some people like that program. Your counter-argument is a straw man. Food safety laws and pollution laws pass Constitutional muster while forcing me to buy an insurance policy does not. I can buy food from the local farmer, if I so choose, with no FDA or USDA oversight.
osimnod 1 year ago
@osimnod
-I understand the Constitution does not allow for nationalized health care, it also didn't allow for the prohibition of slavery until some forward thinking people amended it. I think allowing nationalized hc would be a good amendment.
-My belief in that is reinforced by the many positive thing i have heard about such systems abroad.
-You said "The Federal Government has no authority to dictate what a company must provide" I was saying the govt does so to other companies no problem.
kbthiede 1 year ago
@kbthiede If the supporters of nationalized health care want to codify that in the Constitution then they can go through the process of Amending it. At least then you'd be following the law rather than inventing it. Please stop with the "systems abroad" canard - it proves nothing. And please cite the dictates of the Federal Gov't on what a private company must provide - other than when it refers to a legal product, under the Commerce Clause.
osimnod 1 year ago
The biggest problems this country face are ivey league aristocrats like Erwin Chemerinsky or even Cass Sunstein. These harvard jew bastards will screw us every way they can.
DOWN W/ HARVARD LAW!!!
cheerdiver 1 year ago 3
@cheerdiver
George W Bush got his BA at Yale and his MBA at Harvard.
YEAH THOSE IVY LEAGUE JERKS RUINED THIS COUNTRY
kbthiede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pardon my ignorance, but can anybody tell me the names of these two men?
BrainseedsPro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pardon my ignorance, but can anybody tell me who these two men are?
BrainseedsPro 1 year ago
pardon my ignorance, but can anybody tell me who these two men are?
BrainseedsPro 1 year ago
It sure helps the argument that the government crony is cross-eyed.
fireteamforfreedom 1 year ago 16
@fireteamforfreedom you are a retard. hes one of the foremost scholars in constitutional law in the country and is highly respected by both democrats and republicans. fucking ignorant
clo5ure 11 months ago
Economic activity requires exchange. For exchange is the basis of wealth and economics means all matters of man regarding wealth.
This has been known since Socrates for Socrates wrote about this exactly in his dialogue known as the Eryxias.
Erwin Chemerinsky is an asshole and a scumbag. I'm glad that asshole isn't my dad or brother. What a waste of air and food he is.
TruthAxe 1 year ago 5
No more Smack-a-Mole. We need to Dismember that which goes against Liberty. We need to elect brave confident & competent Representatives that will dismember the Tyrant.. Sever the Arms, Legs, and Head and remove incumbents that won't fall in line with plan.
Incumbents &/or Prospects for the House & Senate must pass these questions:
1. "Will you support &/or move to repeal the 16th & 17th amendments of the Constitution & cut off the arms of the Tyrant to restore property rights & state's rights?"
GunClingingPalin 1 year ago 2
2. "Will you cut off the Legs of the Tyrant by supporting &/or moving for amending the Constitution to define &/or remove the Commerce Clause and Necessary Clause, restoring Liberty to the people?
3. Will you sever the Head of the Tyrant by supporting &/or moving to abolish the Federal Reserve to restore sound money to the people?
If they can't support these remedies they need to be marked as weak &/or incompetent or as too cowardly to carry out what must be done to restore our Republic.
GunClingingPalin 1 year ago
Nothing Less than these remedies will restore our Republic to it's prosperous state. We must choose our Representatives wisely in these matters. Sever the Arms, Legs & Head of this Tyrant that has crept in, & the rest will fall in place.
Severing the Arms & Legs should precede beheading the beast, so the economy may stabilize & the steady flow of goods & services amongst the states may not be frustrated by any destructive actions, by the Federal Reserve while anticipating it's severance.
GunClingingPalin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd like to ask a question, that hopefully, someone will answer intelligently, without a lot of vague partisanship and hostility; disguised rhetoric: as of now, the massive cost of unpaid health care from uninsured recipients, absorbed by the taxpayer over time is a problem...would requiring people to pay, to not be a liability in that sense be the worst solution? It's a little convoluted, I'll admit..but if it gets suffering people covered and starts to fill a hole in the economy? Send me info
brendanlattin 1 year ago
I'd like to ask a question, that hopefully, someone will answer intelligently, without a lot of vague partisanship and hostility; disguised rhetoric: as of now, the massive cost of unpaid health care from uninsured recipients, absorbed by the taxpayer over time is a problem...would requiring people to pay, to not be a liability in that sense be the worst solution? It's a little convoluted, I'll admit...but if it gets suffering people covered and starts to fill a hole in the economy? Send me info
brendanlattin 1 year ago
It has been somewhat of an open argument about whether the commerce clause allows the government to make any law it wants or to allow government to make laws to carry out their specific duties defined therein. It seems like the government wants "any and whatever" law they want to pass as part of their duties. This is wrong an damages the people. This open argument must END. Congress must force the issue to correct this open argument problem once & for all. It must be defined to serve the people
GunClingingPalin 1 year ago
auto insurance law applies only to liability insurance (to 3rd parties) - completely different type of insurance and rationale
ieodksnw787 1 year ago
Required = Forced
I am requiring you to give me your wallet.
TheSupremeSkeptic 1 year ago
lol, a republic if you keep it so. I don't think I like his majesty telling me what I have to buy.
dirtdogg123 1 year ago
Chilling.
cr1138 1 year ago
Is Chemerinsky high? the guy is a cunt of the highest order.
tedatlas 1 year ago
@tedatlas actually, you are
colonelmatterson 1 year ago
@colonelmatterson
Oh hoho, great comeback, cocksucker. The guy is a douche who interprets the constitution to mean what he wants it to mean, not what is was meant to be. He's a cunt and so are you for defending him.
tedatlas 1 year ago
What's the title of that film with E.G. Marshall? Anybody know?
CountArtha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big Oil corporations are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
perplexfraction 1 year ago
Wow, the premise of this video is so hollow and mean-spirited. Reason and Austin Bragg owe Chemerinsky an apology for interviewing him seemingly under false pretenses: to use cut-up 2-3 second clips against sinister-sounding music in order to portray him as some kind of apologist for an evil government conspiracy.
colonelmatterson 1 year ago
@colonelmatterson They were showing what he believes...lol.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
@colonelmatterson
Did the sinister music change back and forth between the interviews?
ahigheztarget 1 year ago
The Supreme Court was forced to so broadly (and yes, BADLY) interpret the commerce clause because we (Americans....humans?) were too greedy and selfish to sustain some semblance of fairness and good will in the working wages and conditions in the years leading up to the new deal. SCOTUS was doing a fine job striking down federal laws that meddled w/ completely intrastate commerce, then we fooked it all up. It's was our fault then, and it's our fault now. RIP, commerce clause. & Sorry, TJ :*(
jr520c 1 year ago
Strawman argument at 8:39.
bslow22 1 year ago
wheat as you want. our founders are weeping somewhere as they watch a nation founded on economic and religious liberty get swept away by the all-knowing and all-compassionate state.
once a case like Filburn gets decided it isn't a far leap for congress to tell Americans what kind of car they have to buy or that they need to buy health insurance...oh wait we already have that.
umrmecheman 1 year ago
the SCOTUS decision against farmer Roscoe Filburn in 1942 is in my mind one of the most egregious violations of SCOTUS in our history. it upheld that congress can do virtually anything it wants to any sector of an economy as long as it can tie it somehow to interstate trade.
in that case Filburn wanted to grow more than the 11 acres of wheat he was allowed to under the Ag Adjustment Act and use the extra wheat on his farm. sorry said the SCOTUS you don't even have the freedom to produce as much
umrmecheman 1 year ago
Comment removed
zeekyblahIV 1 year ago
Interesting how the Commerce Clause should be used to prevent Arizona trade barriers because of S.B. 1070 but instead perverts it's meaning for the use of socialism.
residentzombie 1 year ago 2
So if I grew my own vegetables to cut costs on food the government can take over?Damn.There goes that idea...
Oh well.They can continue to supply me with food stamps(along with the millions of other families) and pretend to be dumbfounded when they see that the tax dollars are "vanishing".
Elina2daDenwa 1 year ago
I like Reason, and I like this video, but I think it's absurd that Americans argue about the technicalities of something written on hemp paper a few hundred years ago while ignoring the vastly more important ethical issue. Why should the state have the right to regulate ANYTHING? A person's business is theirs alone, no matter what effect they can be said to have on commerce. They should be completely free to do their business no matter what congress, states or constitutions say about it.
Hostile 1 year ago
this is good, spread the word
luvzpalin1 1 year ago
I listen to "the smart guys" all the time on the Hugh Hewitt show. So nice to finally see what they look like. Very distinguished (but older than they sounded on radio).
milkchaser 1 year ago
That was one ugly-ass Ben Franklin as the end!
Dougster 1 year ago
I'm normally such a rational (and peaceful) person, but Erwin Chemerinsky's very demeanor makes me want to fly out to Cali and stomp his goddamn face into the fucking dirt. How can he be so smugly statist? How can he make pretenses to rationality as he justifies unlimited power for an explicitly limited form of government?
Fuck I just want to slap his crooked eye straight.
032125 1 year ago 4
@032125 What I find frightening in my closest yet liberal friends is their belief that govt will all ways do the right thing, will keep us from harm either from within ourselves or from without, and all failing to recognize the absolute absurdity of those concepts!
Akingham 1 year ago
@Akingham I say the same thing about my conservative friends and the military.
Still waiting to find the WMD's?
opusprime6 1 year ago
@032125 perhaps its because blatant statism offends you? me too man.
umrmecheman 1 year ago
"A republic, if you can keep it so."
this video just got favorited
johncrazy8s 1 year ago
The question remains, can the commerce clause be restored to its rightful place? Seems to me we are far beyond the point where that is possible... One would have to repeal countless laws already in effect.
EdgeNicx 1 year ago
I think its time to just move. The beauty of America and the American Constitution has been lost. We have The Patriot Act and countless other things (like idiots who say "Who cares what the founders meant") Lets just leave.
pedzsan 1 year ago
There's another difference between the auto insurance mandate and healthcare one. STATES imposed this on their own, one by one (47). However, the healthcare mandate is FEDERAL, and it could very well be a violation of the 10th Amendment as well as the other constitutional issues.
And btw, does Chemerinsky forget the power and ROLE of state governments to regulate within their borders? Does he just think state gov'ts shouldn't regulate and let the feds do it all? LOL
whoo689 1 year ago
If the Commerce Clause was supposed to give Congress the ability to regulate ALL aspects of the economy, why even have a Commerce Clause??? It would be ASSUMED by Congress that they could regulate anything. Is that REALLY what the Founders wanted, Mr. Chemerinsky?
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Actually, according to the Tenth Amendment they wouldn't be able to regulate any aspects of the economy without the commerce clause.
zeekyblahIV 1 year ago
You people are amazing. Thank you for doing this stuff.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
Our choices are being taken away. how can anyone in their right mind support this?
wykkydtruth 1 year ago
amazing video
lonercarrot 1 year ago
Chemerinsky can suck it. I had to buy his Con Law textbook when I was a 1L and I thought I'd never have to listen to that slimy fraud again.
It's a real pleasure seeing his ass get handed to him here.
capedcamish 1 year ago 2
Nothing personal to the person who made this video, but I don't think he understands the subtly of the Commerce Clause.
lactoseintolerant 1 year ago
@lactoseintolerant Yes, because vast sweeping legislation by a government run amok should be based upon Constitutional subtleties.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
@Ovedya2006 I'm not saying that the government (without regard to party) hasn't made a hash of things, but it's not as wild west as the video makes it out to be.
lactoseintolerant 1 year ago
@lactoseintolerant
I think it's as REAL as the video makes it out to be. The Health Care Reform law is unconstitutional. If not on the grounds that it violates the Commerce Clause, but on the grounds that it's a direct tax, which is unconstitutional. That point made at 7:45
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
@Ovedya2006 So do you believe what the video says or not? Because if you think it's amok as you describe then the court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be constitutional making the health care reform constitutional. Or do you think the Commerce Clause should be overturned?
lactoseintolerant 1 year ago
@lactoseintolerant That doesn't follow. The Court's rulings with regard to the Constitutionality of actions of the government using the Commerce clause should be overturned. That point is also made in the video. What is needed is Constitutional reform, not a repeal of the Commerce Clause altogether.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
@Ovedya2006 Sorry, but realistically that probably isn't going to happen. In my estimation something like the Commerce Clause is going to be extremely difficult to reform. What do I know though.
I'm not exactly sure what the producer of the video had in mind. I clicked through because I've read some of Chemerinsky's stuff. And I still don't think it's as bad as reason.tv makes it sound. I suppose it makes for good interweb fodder.
lactoseintolerant 1 year ago
@lactoseintolerant Which is exactly why the confirmation of Kagan was so important. The Congressman asked a perfectly valid question with regard to toe Commerce Clause. What prevents Congress from mandating ANYTHING that has to do with American consumption of goods & services in this country? Liberal interpretations of the Constitution, and judgments arising from those interpretations ARE very hard to reverse, and most times don't get reversed.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
@lactoseintolerant Congress confers its power from the electorate - the people - and it is restricted by the Constitution. We already know that he Congress is steamrolling the will of the American people for the sake of special insterests. Now - for the past decade or so, and increasingly, the Judiciary is dismantling the Constitutional restrictions through liberal interpretations. The state of the Republic is in decline because of it. The time for complacency is over!
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
@lactoseintolerant Yes, I too am upset that the subtleties of 230+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence were not adequately addressed in this 10 minute video.
Yeesh.
Thebigwafflestomper 1 year ago
@Thebigwafflestomper haha well, it isn't 230+ but yeah i guess i'm asking too much?
lactoseintolerant 1 year ago
Good stuff! We need to start applying pressure to these asshats!
illinoispatriot1776 1 year ago
loved it, the last bit was cuuuuute.
corenothing 1 year ago
This video uses clips of a film with, it looks like, EG Marshall - it looks interesting - what is it?
jdhenchman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I remember being in law school and just being shocked at how the liberal professors thought nothing of trampling the Constitution via the commerce clause and international law.
strongbadXCP 1 year ago
Comment removed
strongbadXCP 1 year ago
From law school experience, I was taught both sides of every legal issue -- EXCEPT in constitutional law. I was taught only the "living document" view and nothing about original intent or contract views. I found it after graduating and it made so much more sense, though I was a Democrat at that time. Now everything else has come around and I am a conservative.
jwquinlan 1 year ago 2
In my opinion the "intent" of the founders shouldn't matter when interpreting the Constitution and the subsequent 27 amendments, but rather the meaning of the words used in the clause.
llamalord111 1 year ago
@llamalord111
WHAT MEANING? The meaning of the words at the time they were written? Or what the courts and the congress can twist them into.
Still wondering how the words, SHALL NOT INFRINGE can be interpreted to mean that I need a damn LICENSE to do something that is LAWFUL to begin with.
The words in the clause was regulate, which at the TIME meant to make regular and even, NOT CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF SOCIETY.
endisnighe 1 year ago
@endisnighe Sorry I should have clarified, the meaning of the words at the time of the writing, which can easily be gotten by Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. Why? Because it was the most widely used English dictionary at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Concerning the 2nd Amendment (which you brought up) and the Commerce clause (the entire point of ReasonTV's video) congress has interpreted the meaning of each incorrectly to fit their agendas.
llamalord111 1 year ago
@llamalord111 Don't get too wrapped up in the "meaning vs intent" semantics game. I know that some Founders had differing intentions, but you must study what ideas were accepted and which were rejected at the 1787 Convention before dismissing the intent of every Founder on every issue. You must also consider how the Constitution was understood by those who did the actual ratifying in each state.
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
@MrPloppy1 The reason I choose to go with the meaning rather than the intent like you mentioned is that the founders had different intents for what the nation would become. I will definitely take your advice and read up on the convention thanks for the advice :)
llamalord111 1 year ago
Actually, I'd like to know who the smart-guy is as well -- he deserves our support!
dedicateddad 1 year ago
Who is the pinko, statist lefty man-gina?
Clearly he's one of the "domestic enemies" we've sworn an oath to defend against.
dedicateddad 1 year ago
Ben Franklin's words have never struck me so strongly.
1madmartagan1 1 year ago 2
This IS the most important concept to understand and decide upon. A true libertarian has the original intent concept philosophy. Saving the Constitution is our best chance against the New World Order totalitarian takeover.
residentzombie 1 year ago
"I do solemnly swear that I WILL support and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC"
I wonder if the sum of the UC Irvine professor’s comments qualifies him as a DOMESTIC ENEMY? That aside I wonder, what action (in his scholarly opinion) would be appropriate based on the word DEFEND? I suppose he would be OK with us making up its meaning. All's fair right professor?
MrWashingTea 1 year ago
Why do people like this Irvine guy look at the State as a god? "Don't restrict my god! My god can do whatever it wants! How dare you defy my god! Sedition!"
Voluntarian 1 year ago
Chemerinsky makes me puke.
Wilbur665 1 year ago 18
@Wilbur665
agreed
LCT29 1 year ago
@Wilbur665 That may be, but not knowing him otherwise and considering the fact that he is in the school of law he does an amazing job in this video of enlightening us of how the American Gov't views the clause, the governments perspective on these issues and laws etc. Yeah he is still a doucher.
FloodPower 1 year ago
Chemerinsky gives me a real bad vibe, and he totally looks like a candy-ass bitch. Little punk never got an ass-whipping as a child and now he thinks his shit doesn't stink.
Wilbur665 1 year ago
@Wilbur665
totally agree
LCT29 1 year ago
I believe this is one of the best videos ReasonTV made in a long time
Omroon 1 year ago 3
fuck these divided states of embarrassment.
ganja4twee 1 year ago
don't beat up on chimerinsky. he's always been a guy who's at least ready and willing to have open debate with people outside of his political cult.
clemtoe 1 year ago
@clemtoe
true but he's still scary-he wants government up all of our asses
LCT29 1 year ago
these people are supposed to be working for us not us working for them and they have better benefits better pay and a lifetime job. we need to get the lifers out of there and put some new people in there people that are going to work for us and let us get back Our Rights.
rhll4252 1 year ago
There's reason it states "Foreign nations","States", and "Indian tribes", because they were the only class of entities which existed, equal and independent from the other concerning commerce and federal power. Judicial review by a handful of men has allowed compete intrusion within the "States". What is the Health Reform Act? Yep, inclusion of the Indian tribes, or rather intrusion establishing federal power of commerce over the tribes.
coffeenuts44 1 year ago
Just as there is reason there is constant differentiation between "United States", "States", and "the People" in regards to powers concerning the republic. Taxation power under "General welfare" is given only for support of the "United States", not the states nor the people.
coffeenuts44 1 year ago
Wow
darkr0astedblend 1 year ago
So according to the 'living document' folks, that part in Article 1 Section 8 To regulate commerce with foreign nations... using the same logic that they use means the US government can tell foreign nations how to regulate their commerce in a foreign land.
residentzombie 1 year ago 3
@residentzombie Exactly. So well put.
machaeroguy 1 year ago
wow, this taught a lot more about US government than 4 years of high school. Yes, it does take an opinion about certain things, but its so direct that it is hard to argue against.
theyoda55 1 year ago
It really comes down to an understanding of the true nature of what the United States were designed by the Constitution to be--a FEDERATION of sovereign STATES (nations) where each state ceded some specificly enumerated powers to a common general government.
It's no wonder people think the Constitution is confusing, they look at this "one nation under God, indivisible" and think that is what the Constitution created. It didn't. It's like owning a car, but having the manual for a motorcycle.
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
Best. Reason. Video. Ever.
MrPloppy1 1 year ago 29
I really hope when the board of administrators at UC sees what Erwin Chemerisnky really believes, they'll throw him out of their Law School. I mean, the guy openly admitted to not believing in the rule of law when he said we shouldn't be bound by the constitution. This is what he wants to teach for future adjudicators. What a joke.
DavidCaddock 1 year ago 4
@DavidCaddock
sorry, not a chance of that-they know his politics full well
LCT29 1 year ago
I don't think the government should get involved in job creation.
LLORT3 1 year ago 2
Excellent video! Should be required viewing material. In fact, Congress should be required to watch it. Turn the tables on them!!
ButterflyDragon9 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
While I am not a libertarian, when I was in law school I thought I was the only one disturbed by the extent of the expansion of the CC. Lopez was decided after I graduated, so you can imagine my relief.
Still, it bothers me to this day the bland acceptance by Constitutional scholars of the expansion of Congressional power.
wolfmanjim 1 year ago 3
The Constitution means whatever liberals and activist judges want it to mean. Words and the founding fathers' intentions are irrelevant.
utreasonousbastards 1 year ago
While I am not a libertarian, when I was in law school I thought I was the only one disturbed by the extent of the expansion of the CC. Lopez was decided after I graduated, so you can imagine my relief.
Still, it bothers me to this day the bland acceptance by Constitutional scholars of the expansion of Congressional power.
wolfmanjim 1 year ago
Are we a Republic anymore? It seems that the Constitution has been slipping away. We need to elect more Libertarians and get our system back to what the Founders set out. Don't be afraid to vote Libertarian! Send a real message to Washington!
KreativeKeyLLC 1 year ago 5
@KreativeKeyLLC The constitution is great, but as along as the government interprets it and enforces it then they can break it as much as they want without consequence.
gravebaiting 1 year ago
@gravebaiting Your statement is too cryptic for me. The Constitution has been interpreted poorly by people who wish to destroy the United States from the inside. They have been funded by outside sources. Too disturbing because we have real Americans supporting it blindly duped into thinking that we are just doing it to become more "politically correct" & have "sustainable communities" or "The Dream Act." Hope. Change. The Commerce Clause abused like a red-headed step child. True insanity.
KreativeKeyLLC 1 year ago
Minute 6:25: This is what Rand Paul was talking about and I agree. Repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act. The Federal gov should not be allowed to tell private business who they can and cannot serve. Today's use of the Commerce Clause will allow the FDA to regulate our backyard farms, to allow the feds to force us to make our homes green before we can sell them... to continue to prevent us from doing with out bodies what we want. Who's life is it anyway?
sallyoboyle 1 year ago
@sallyoboyle Rand just talked about it being unneseccary and overreaching, but has said that he has no intent nor was it ever part of his campaign platform to repeal any part of the Civil Rights Act. He was mearly using that as an example of how government grabs power they should not.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie Yes, I do know that. I would like title II repealed.
sallyoboyle 1 year ago
Comment removed
NoNameC68 1 year ago
Comment removed
NoNameC68 1 year ago
Chemerinsky was becoming uncomfortable with his position. He knows he is in the wrong, but he sticks with it like other Statists, because it fits with his world view. They don't care what the Constitution states, and work to try to create convoluted arguments to make us believe the Constitution agrees with their agenda.
oilhammer04 1 year ago 4
@oilhammer04
dead on dude
LCT29 1 year ago
There's not a freedom to not have medical care? LOLWUT
That guy's the dean of a law school, but it doesn't sound like he has a critically-thinking bone in his body. All he believes is what the Supreme Court ITSELF says. "The Supreme Court this" "Supreme Court that" KNOCK IT OFF WITH THAT CRAP! I don't CARE what the SCOTUS said; I care what's actually constitutional. Whoever said the Supreme Court is always right?
whoo689 1 year ago 4
@whoo689 Exactly. And the blaring evidence is given when one SCOTUS overturns a precedent of a previous panel of SCOTUS, in effect saying that the previous SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional.
machaeroguy 1 year ago 2
EVERYONE needs to see this video!
Ecosse57 1 year ago
Chemerinsky wrote my Constitutional Law book -- I knew he was evil back then and now I know it for sure!
But seriously, in that class, I saw that the commerce clause did, in fact, give Congress the power to regulate almost anything. It's been abused, no doubt, but people don't hold Congress accountable -- we may say it's wrong, we may have something against it, but we keep re-electing incumbents.
The solution is to make this an issue and stop re-electing those who perpetuate the abuse!
jmatt926 1 year ago 9
@jmatt926 Perfectly said. PEOPLE need to understand the general populace makes the government. If we keep electing these cock-eyed fast talking losers, give them the backing of the police and military, the keys to our treasury, and the ability to write the laws that we should live by, they're going to (and are currently working to) crash this country.
s117godd 1 year ago 2
@jmatt926 Stop electing republicans.
Elina2daDenwa 1 year ago