Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Certainly all disinterested colonists believed in sensible regulation. Unfortunately common sense fell out of fashion during the 20th Century.
"The first Thing I remember of this kind, was a general discourse in Boston when I was a Boy, of a Complaint from North Carolina against New England Rum, that it poison'd their People, giving them the Dry Bellyach, with a Loss of the Use of their Limbs. The Distilleries being examin'd on the Occasion, it was found that several of them used leaden Still-heads and Worms, and the Physicians were of the Opinion that the Mischief was occasion'd by that Use of Lead. The Legislature of the Massachusetts thereupon pass'd an Act prohibiting under severe Penalties the Use of such Still-heads & Worms thereafter"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Benjamin Vaughan (July 31, 1786)
There you have support for states to regulate, not the federal government.
Though that quote predates the constitution, and speaks of happenings long before that, they did nonetheless subsequently enumerate the power of regulating interstate commerce (which that subject obviously concerns)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.
As I have posted in another thread, "commerce" didn't mean then what it means today. It only meant the sale and transportation of goods when the Constitution was written.
[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION] USMB's Commander McBragg
Classic!As I have posted in another thread, "commerce" didn't mean then what it means today. It only meant the sale and transportation of goods when the Constitution was written.
Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Madison as well as Hamilton believed the nation needed a strong and more powerful central government than had previously existed. Federalist papers?
So why are people who are hostile to regulation like the Federalist Society always claiming to be the heirs of the traditions and ideals of Madison and Hamilton as well as claiming them as their inspiration and role models?
I understand the clueless, ill-educated here and elsewhere on the web making such ridiculous and absurd errors, but...
Like it's news here, you are a total dunce. "Well regulated" does not mean larded over with government regulations.
/Fail.
...
As I have posted in another thread, "commerce" didn't mean then what it means today. It only meant the sale and transportation of goods when the Constitution was written.
102RP6
The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.
The Supreme Court held to that meaning of the term until FDR threatened to pack the court in the 1930s.
They claim both Madison and Hamilton as their inspiration and appeals to expertise and credibility. They want it both ways and split down the middle. They are a front group of anti-regulationists out of the late 1970s and early Reagan years (early 1980s). 
