CSA's commerce clause

From the other thread:

Congress shall have the power...

US Constitution:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

CSA Constitution:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

1) Does the CSA's limitation make sense?

2) What would be the impact on the functioning of the current government if the US had adopted the CSA's version?

Originally posted by sh76
From the other thread:

Congress shall have the power...

US Constitution:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

CSA Constitution:

[quote] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, but neither this, nor any other c ...[text shortened]... e impact on the functioning of the current government if the US had adopted the CSA's version?

1. I'm sure it seemed to make sense when it was written, but that was no doubt a long time ago.

2. It would no doubt have changed the governments spending habits a great deal.The impact would take several pages to explain fully.

Originally posted by sh76
From the other thread:

Congress shall have the power...

US Constitution:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

CSA Constitution:

[quote] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, but neither this, nor any other c ...[text shortened]... e impact on the functioning of the current government if the US had adopted the CSA's version?

No intercontinental railroad, expanded canals or federal highway system. The effect on the economy of the US would have been catastrophic.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No intercontinental railroad, expanded canals or federal highway system. The effect on the economy of the US would have been catastrophic.

"No intercontinental railroad, expanded canals or federal highway system. The effect on the economy of the US would have been catastrophic."

On the other hand, the boondoggles of railroad building and canals might have been avoided, if left in the hands of entrepreneurs instead of politicians and their patrons. The bribery, the scandals. What would we do without them?

Is there, or has there ever been a Statist, central government notion that you did not like?

Originally posted by sh76
From the other thread:

Congress shall have the power...

US Constitution:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

CSA Constitution:

[quote] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, but neither this, nor any other c ...[text shortened]... e impact on the functioning of the current government if the US had adopted the CSA's version?

It may have prevented the total abuse of the Commerce clause we have seen in the last century, where almost any action of Congress can be linked to the commerce clause.

Originally posted by normbenign
It may have prevented the total abuse of the Commerce clause we have seen in the last century, where almost any action of Congress can be linked to the commerce clause.

For the sake of simplicity, let's discuss one example: the interstate highway system. As No1 said and you have not disagreed, the interstate highway system would have been nigh impossible under the CSA's commerce clause as Congress could not have appropriated money for its construction.

Don't you think that we, as a nation, are better off for the interstate highway system having been built?

Originally posted by normbenign
"No intercontinental railroad, expanded canals or federal highway system. The effect on the economy of the US would have been catastrophic."

On the other hand, the boondoggles of railroad building and canals might have been avoided, if left in the hands of entrepreneurs instead of politicians and their patrons. The bribery, the scandals. What would we ...[text shortened]...
Is there, or has there ever been a Statist, central government notion that you did not like?

Entrepreneurs are hardly immune to boondoggles.

Without liberal use of eminent domain powers, the building of an intercontinental railroad would have been utterly impossible; a few intransigent land owners could have blocked the entire project. The extreme detrimental effect this would have had on the US economy should be obvious even to someone as ideologically rigid and close minded as yourself.

Originally posted by sh76
For the sake of simplicity, let's discuss one example: the interstate highway system. As No1 said and you have not disagreed, the interstate highway system would have been nigh impossible under the CSA's commerce clause as Congress could not have appropriated money for its construction.

Don't you think that we, as a nation, are better off for the interstate highway system having been built?

I expect either a total dodge or a "holding his breath until he turns blue" response from norm. Those are his normal responses when presented with unpalatable reality.

Originally posted by sh76
For the sake of simplicity, let's discuss one example: the interstate highway system. As No1 said and you have not disagreed, the interstate highway system would have been nigh impossible under the CSA's commerce clause as Congress could not have appropriated money for its construction.

Don't you think that we, as a nation, are better off for the interstate highway system having been built?

It is impossible to argue what may have happened if.......you name it did not. Yes, I've enjoyed the interstate highways. That doesn't argue that none would have been built without the federal gas tax, and Eisenhower's initiative. Much of America evolved without a grand federal scheme to back it.

Fact is it could well be argued that based on the example of the railroads and canals, the interstate system might have been done better with local and private planning.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Entrepreneurs are hardly immune to boondoggles.

Without liberal use of eminent domain powers, the building of an intercontinental railroad would have been utterly impossible; a few intransigent land owners could have blocked the entire project. The extreme detrimental effect this would have had on the US economy should be obvious even to someone as ideologically rigid and close minded as yourself.

"Entrepreneurs are hardly immune to boondoggles."

Yes, but they use their own money, and are usually more prudent when putting it at risk.

A number of very successful railroads were built without government, in fact arguably the best. If a few landowners could have stopped one route, other landowners probably would have jumped at the opportunity to sell. Force isn't the only way to accomplish things.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is impossible to argue what may have happened if.......you name it did not. Yes, I've enjoyed the interstate highways. That doesn't argue that none would have been built without the federal gas tax, and Eisenhower's initiative. Much of America evolved without a grand federal scheme to back it.

Fact is it could well be argued that based on the ex ...[text shortened]... nd canals, the interstate system might have been done better with local and private planning.

The interstates are a comprehensive system that would have been impossible to plan and execute without a central planning system. It's possible that most states would have built their own limited access highways, but they'd never have the systematic continuity and efficiency of the interstate system.

Originally posted by sh76
Don't you think that we, as a nation, are better off for the interstate highway system having been built?

Yes, one of the many beneficial contributions by the people, the federal government, and the CC as written. We are very lucky and have a much better quality of life with a strong and effective federal government.

Originally posted by moon1969
Yes, one of the many beneficial contributions by the people, the federal government, and the CC as written. We are very lucky and have a much better quality of life with a strong and effective federal government.

Yeah; now if only that effective federal government could learn how to balance a budget like the rest of us have to...

Originally posted by normbenign
"Entrepreneurs are hardly immune to boondoggles."

Yes, but they use their own money, and are usually more prudent when putting it at risk.

A number of very successful railroads were built without government, in fact arguably the best. If a few landowners could have stopped one route, other landowners probably would have jumped at the opportunity to sell. Force isn't the only way to accomplish things.

Please cite to me a 3000 mile railroad built without government. Thanks.

Originally posted by sh76
Yeah; now if only that effective federal government could learn how to balance a budget like the rest of us have to...

Who does that? Private debt has increased over the last 30 years at a much faster pace than government debt.