The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Im very well aware of the 3/5ths compromise and it's implications and if you were as well read as you said you were then you would have known this as well. You laughing at me is the last of my worry's want to know why? because people like you I actually pity because your so lacking in a general understanding of our form of Govt. that it's you who are often laughed at when you post the nonsense you do that is often repeated and found from just about any pamphlet that every progressive group hands out. I am extremely well aware cases having dealth with the commerce clause
Well, maybe instead of blubbering on telling me how much you know, how bout you actually explain the implications of it. You like to bullshit a lot and pretend you actually know stuff, but where is any evidence that we should hold sacred the ideas of a bunch of white, old, property owning men who were NOT representative, and who owned slaves?
Among the Several States .--Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government
Again if you were not so blinded by partisanship and were able to actually comprehend what you were reading then you would have seen that even the SCOTUS has through the years ruled that interstate commerce can be regulated by the Federal Govt. and as roads carry interstate commerce per my postings they can also be regulated. However, this does not give congress the power to regulatewithin the states roads that do not have any connection to interstate commerce or rail for that matter. Perhaps they helps clear it up for you as you seem so intent to not understand what your reading.
You are apparently quite stupid. Nowhere in the commerce clause does it say that the federal government can FUND interstate commerce, merely than it can regulate it. Besides the fact that, nothing in the US Constitution says that SCOTUS gets to interpret it, and, if you knew anything about the commerce clause line of cases, you would know they've done great violence to the original meanings. Violence that I agree with, but violence nonetheless.
United States v. Butler.
And? Your point?
Nowhere. But anything the government can do, such as regulate commerce, it is allowed to do for the "public good". This is simple stuff, really.
The Federalist Paper No.10 argues that a republic is capable of controlling the effects of faction, more so than a democracy. The reason put forward is that a system of representation is more capable of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, as well as being better able to balance the needs of the public good. Madison notes that representatives are more divorced from the issues being raised by factions and consequently better able to create just legislation that is compatible with rights and the public good. Public Good while a theory and a goal of Govt. it is not something that gives Govt. broad powers to legislate. Had you a little knowledge of your nation then you would have been able to understand this concept.
If you knew how to read, you'd understand that I never said that the public good gives the government broad powers to legislate.
I will end on this note and that is the Amendment process. if you wish to change the constitution as you seem to be such a deep scholar of the constitution , then my suggesting this should not come as such a surprise. I'm very well aware what a progressive democrat is and the difference between a traditional democrat and a progressive one is. In fact , I submit that many of those that call themselves progressives have zero clue of exactly what that means as they often call themselves liberals as well which is laughable. considering the fact that a traditional liberal would never want Govt. to controls that a so called progressive advocates. So again, young man I suggest you pick up a history book and not a social studies book to have a clue as to what kind of nation you actually live in. Of course i'd be happy to kep educating you if you so desire.
Oh, do keep "educating" me. If you can really call this rambling half-coherent mass of gibberish an education.
I read law books. Not history or "social studies" books. I know a wee bit more about American jurisprudence than you do.
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Well as your law knowledge is so vast perhaps this one sort of slipped your mind when you aksed that question on what gives the Govt. the power to fund under the commerce clause. It's very obvious you don't read history books by your postings and it shows.
As for your statement on how much violence the courts have done to the clause, again had you bothered to read and actaully understood what you were reading, then you would have seen my original agreement with Madison's view on the commerce clause. So given this and your vast knowledge of the law and admitted lack of history let me help you, In the butler case which is the one case that most point to as the turning point for federal power expansion in the commerce clause the courts according to Justice Roberts not only abandoned Madison's 150 year held view of the limited meaning of this clause in favor of Hamiltons they did so in fear so that they may save he courts from FDR. If you had bothered to do some research you would have known this already. Further, you would also have seen that I do not support the expansion or the progressive view of the commerce clause.
You also made reference to old white men, and again as your admitted lack of historical knowledge may help here, you might want to know that may men of color helped build the nation we live in. Here are a just a few...
Twenty-five African Americans earned the Medal of Honor during the American Civil War, including seven sailors of the Union Navy, fifteen soldiers of the United States Colored Troops, and three soldiers of other Army units.[2] Fourteen African American men earned the Medal for actions in the Battle of Chaffin's Farm, where a division of U.S. Colored Troops saw heavy action. Another four men, all sailors, earned their Medals at the Battle of Mobile Bay. William Harvey Carney was the first African American to perform an action for which a Medal of Honor was awarded, but Robert Blake was the first to actually receive the Medal (Blake's was issued in 1864, Carney did not receive his until 1900). It was common for Civil War Medals of Honor to be awarded decades after the conflict ended; in one case, Andrew Jackson Smith's Medal was not awarded until 2001, 137 years after the action in which he earned it. Smith's wait, caused by a missing battle report, is the longest delay of the award for any recipient, African American or otherwise
You asked why should you hold the ideals of these old white men sacred, well in fact you don't have too. This nation allows you to do that , I do find it interesting though that for someone would would condemn the very foundations that their very own Govt. was based on would claim to spend so much time studying it's laws. Nik, while I honestly do not care what your opinion is or lack thereof, I do respect your right to voice it and you asked why you should hold those ideals sacred, perhaps it's because you can make those opinions known in this nation and in many places you cannot.