On June 6th, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States in GONZALEZ (Ashcroft) v RAICH
asserted the federal government, under Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the states, has been delegated constitutional authority to enact law to prohibit the cultivation and use of marijuana within the various state borders and prosecute the people of the united states who violate such law.
This decision confirms the Supreme Court of the United States is not only acting in rebellion against our constitutionally limited system of government and the founding fathers design of federalism, it also confirms the Court has become one of America’s most formidable domestic enemies in that it is willing to engage in judicial tyranny by using its office of public trust to subjugate what the people intended when ratifying their state and federal constitutions.
Make no mistake, the Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich is not about “medical marijuana“ or the use of drugs as portrayed by the Supreme Courts cheerleading media. The case is about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce among the states. What this case really boils down to is one simple question: What did those who framed and ratified our Constitution intend by granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states?
Those who support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the intent of our constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.
This fundamental principle of constitutional law was eloquently stated by Jefferson in the following words:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--
[/i]Jeffeson in a letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
In addition, Justice Story writes in his commentaries that "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
So, if the Constitution was ratified by the people with a belief different than that asserted by the SCOTUS, and protection was intended to be afforded to prohibit what the Court asserts Congress has constitutional authority to now do, the decision of the Court amounts to nothing less than a fraud upon the people.
This brings us to the real question involved in the case. What did the framers and ratifiers intend by granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states? Was it their intention to allow Congress to enter the various states to control and prohibit the growth use and consumption of agricultural products arbitrarily selected by Congress, and prosecute the people of the 13 original states for violations of such law? Or, perhaps the intended power was meant to be nothing more than a power to be used by Congress to insure the free movement of goods between the states, and prohibit an existing practice under the Articles of Confederation by which articles exported by one state were taxed by other states as they passed through their borders.
To partially answer this question, one must first determine the meaning of the term “commerce” as used by the founding fathers when framing and ratifying our federal constitution.
The word commerce, as used in the constitution, and as documented in the historical records during the framing and ratification process is found to mean trade. The word commerce, as the founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process, did not mean the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, the production process by which articles of consumption were created, or, similar economic enterprise carried on within the various state borders.
In fact, the term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers, is found to be synonymous with “trade”, and meant nothing more than the exchange of goods between the states. The term “commerce” is found to be interchangeable with “trade” in almost every context in which the founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution!
A review of the historical record produces an irrefutable truth which the Court ignores today___ that the word “commerce” was in fact intentionally meant by our founding fathers, and used by them in their speeches and debates, to refer to trade___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B.
So, in fact, Congress was granted nothing more than a power to regulate the movement and transportation of goods “among” [not within] the states, as per the wording of the Constitution.
Those who reject this historical meaning of commerce as used by the framers and ratifiers, and assert Congress has been delegated the power which the SCOTUS has claimed, have the obligation to prove their assertion and are free to enlighten the world by doing a word search for the term “commerce” in the Federalists
and Anti Federalist Papers
, Madison’s Notes
, Elliot’s Debates
, etc., and provide the evidence from the historical record to support the notion that the term commerce means something other than trade. Better yet, how about those who support the Courts majority opinion, simply provide the evidence from the opinion itself which documents the meaning of the term “commerce” as used by those who framed and ratified our Constitution?
Do the people not deserve historical evidence provided by the SCOTUS that the constitution was adopted with an intended power to allow Congress to enter a particular state to prosecute the people therein and prohibit the growth and use of an agricultural product within that state’s borders, and prosecuted the people therein even though such activity may be allowed by that states laws which have been adopted by the people under their state constitution? Surely there seems to be an irreconcilable conflict in the Courts opinion in that the people of the united States, when adopting the 9th and t0th Amendments to the Constitution of the united States intentionally, deliberately and it was “sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded…”
[/i] against the assumption of such power by Congress which is now alleged to exist by the SCOTUS.
The sad truth is, the majority opinion of the Court in RAICH offers nothing but unsupported conclusions and innuendos concerning the intended power granted to Congress to regulate trade among the states. On the other hand, there is not only an abundance of historical evidence contradicting these conclusions and innuendos, but conclusive evidence in the very words of our Constitution which now stares us in the face and handily rejects what the Court has claimed concerning an alleged power of Congress to trespass a state’s borders to prosecute the people therein and overturn its internal laws which regulate the growth, use and transportation of a controlled substance within its borders.
We all know that it took a constitutional amendment, the 18th Amendment
, to allow Congress constitutional authority and jurisdiction to enact legislation to prohibit the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors…”
[/i] within the various state borders. But this grant of power, and its lawful exercise by Congress in regulating a controlled substance evaporated when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the people by their adoption of the 21st Amendment!
And yet, our Supreme Court has the audacity to pretend Congress still retains power to overturn a states law regulating a controlled substance within its borders and enter therein and arrest and prosecute a person acting in accordance with its state law as adopted by the people? Our founding fathers had a term for the exercise of such unauthorized power . . . despotism!
But now, let us take a closer look at the historical intentions of those who granted power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states and the intent for which that power was granted. Those intentions are quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
Indeed, we now begin to learn the intent for which the power to regulate commerce was granted . . . to insure an uninhibited trade among the states and nothing more!
As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42
concerning the intent of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
And just what is the lawful extent of Congress’ powers with regard to the people’s activities within their various state borders? James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45
tells us that:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
How is it possible that our public servants, having taken an oath to uphold our Constitution, are so eager to misapply the power to regulate commerce among the states, which now, has not only been misapplied to the consumption of an agricultural product, but threatens to be misapplied to federal regulation of drug use among baseball players? ANSWER: the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant!
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.
[/i]___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas