@eladar saidIn the Constitution (which you have given little evidence you've actually read) among the powers of Congress it is stated:
Sorry, but that is not in the Constitution. As I said, you would not understand.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Article I, Section 8
So, yes, the Constitution allows the Congress by law to regulate businesses involved in interstate and foreign commerce (which is all of them these days).
@eladar saidWho said this:
Sorry, but that is not in the Constitution. As I said, you would not understand.
"Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."
@no1marauder saidYes, and we see how limited that was back in 1789. It took over 100 years of government growth before people considered what we see today.
In the Constitution (which you have given little evidence you've actually read) among the powers of Congress it is stated:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Article I, Section 8
So, yes, the Constitution allows the Congress by law to regulate businesses involved in interstate and foreign commerce (which is all of them these days).
Funny how politically appointed judges can find new meanings for the words in the Constitution.
@eladar saidHow "limited" do you imagine it was?
Yes, and we see how limited that was back in 1789. It took over 100 years of government growth before people considered what we see today.
Funny how politically appointed judges can find new meanings for the words in the Constitution.
The Constitution is quite clear on this matter and it doesn't support your ignorant claims.
@no1marauder saidLook at how it was applied the first 50 years.
How "limited" do you imagine it was?
The Constitution is quite clear on this matter and it doesn't support your ignorant claims.
@eladar saidA number of laws setting import duties and tonnage were the first acts of the Congress after the Constitution was ratified. And:
Look at how it was applied the first 50 years.
Registering and clearing of Vessels in the Coasting Trade, and regulating the Coasting Trade, An act for registering and clearing vessels, regulating the coasting trade, and for
other purposes.
Passed September 1, 1789.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/1st-congress/c1.pdf
There's plenty more including direct taxes on businesses like the one that preceded the Whiskey Rebellion.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidLook how it was applied, not how it was expanded. How it applied then was how it was intended. Look at all the expanded stuff, this was never intended.
A number of laws setting import duties and tonnage were the first acts of the Congress after the Constitution was ratified. And:
Registering and clearing of Vessels in the Coasting Trade, and regulating the Coasting Trade, An act for registering and clearing vessels, regulating the coasting trade, and for
other purposes.
Passed September 1, 1789.
https://www.loc ...[text shortened]... s plenty more including direct taxes on businesses like the one that preceded the Whiskey Rebellion.
1 edit
@eladar said0.069% death-rate is a small proportion of the total population, that is true. However, it is still an order of magnitude larger than it might have been, had Trump taken appropriate and timely action to manage the risk. 0.0069% (one decimal place) represents approx. 23,000 deaths among 330,000,000 total population, instead of 230,000 deaths, and even that is still an order of magnitude larger than some countries have achieved.
So you are saying only a very small portion of the population have been killed by covid, mostly 75 year olds or older who are not in the best health to begin with.
What does being 75 or over have to do with it? Do you think those people are dispensable? Do you think the casualties of over-75s count less than for under-75s?
You and Trump have your priorities wrong: you apparently think a job is more important than staying alive. Ask the 230,000 grieving families of America whether they would rather have held onto their jobs or their loved ones.