Myths, Lies and the Commerce Clause

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
I wanted to put this out here quickly. I'd been doing some research and figured I ought to share this information. Its pretty deep. This has to do with the "Commerce Clause" of US/USA constitution(s).

#1 The word commerce used then dealt with the stuff of merchants: trading *AND* trafficking. You know like speculators such as bankers, stock brokerages, state bond transfer agents, commodities brokers, and so on.

#2. Manufacturers or labourers are NOT merchants. Those who buy or purchase goods for the purpose of using the goods industriously [i.e. buying wood to make furniture] *ARE NOT* merchants nor are they in COMMERCE. They may be better referred to as artificiers.

#3 Those who trade [goods or commercial paper] without doing anything to add the value to the goods ARE more towards the class of being merchants.

The meaning of the Commerce Clause has been distorted through propaganda, philosphical swank or spindoctorism.

It seems rather conclusive that the meaning of commerce never intended to touch upon purchases, sales or transactions in goods for the purpose OTHER THAN mercantile speculation.

Also, it may be that interstate transactions between manufacturers are not even interstate commerce in the legal meaning of the word COMMERCE in the late 1700s even TO THIS VERY DAY.

If you were thinking the interpretation began to distort around the 1930s YOU ARE CORRECT. It was an economist tied to Roosevelt Administration that had a great deal to do with promotion such a fallacious expansion of the meaning of commerce. [SEE BELOW]

The structure of the USA/US constitutions *UPHOLD* this perspective because if said commerce clause was so expansive then there would have been little or no need for other clauses such as those dealing with trade with Indians or Foreign Nations.

[For those who have read Invisible Contracts this might be of high import.]

In sum this may mean that according to the legal meanings of words meanings THEN *and* NOW, the US/USA constitutions commerce clause:

1) Laborers, manufacturers, artists or craftsman are never in COMMERCE (interstate or otherwise).
2) Bankers, comercial paper [stock, bonds, etc.] traders are merchants. Retailers, wholesalers might also be merchants.
3) Those who purchase or buy privately [such as for their homes] are may also not be in commerce (interstate or otherwise).

PRINTED SOPHISTRY BEHIND THE FALLACY:
* The Power to Govern : The Constitution--Then and Now, by Walton Hale Hamilton; Douglass Adair [1937]
* Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, William Winslow Crosskey [1953]

{In the second book you might find a *ahem* "subtle" attempt to blur to blur the distinction between common speak and LEGALESE. It is a myth that the USA Constitution was written in common or lay English. }

RECENT WRITINGS UPHOLDING TRUTH:
* New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, In "Symposium on the Commerce Clause" 55 University of Arkansas Law Review 847 (2003) by Prof. Randy Barnett [download]
* The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause -- 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101 (2001), by Randy Barnett [download]
* “The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power” by Richard A. Epstein ( Virginia Law Review , vol 73, p. 1387, 1987) A detailed history of the growth of the commerce power. [Possibly accessible at a local library that has JSTOR access]

RELEVANT COURT CASES
United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Gonzales v. Raich

RELEVANT EVENTS OR CONVENTIONS
Annapolis Convention

ANOTHER RELEVANT CONSTITUTION ISSUE
Necessary and Proper Clause

Note: the affect or presumptons associated with having licenses, particular citizenship, birth certificates or the like is not necessarily discussed here but may be worth considering.

Note: All buying or selling IS NOT commerce (i.e. mercantile trade).

Note: If a craftsman buys gold or silver for the purpose of making jewelry and selling the jewelry such a craftsman is not in commerce and is not a merchant.

[ezrhythm]

Correct but...

One is presumed to be in commerce if evidence of residency (thing identified) is discovered.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Correct but...

One is presumed to be in commerce if evidence of residency (thing identified) is discovered.

Note: the affect or presumptons associated with having licenses, particular citizenship, birth certificates or the like is not necessarily discussed here but may be worth considering.

Without Prejudice.
Good to point out. But I'd tend to say one has to have things i the right order to truly avail of the foregoing.

[netwrkranger]

Michael Badnarik has stated that many of the words used in law have been changed to suit various interests. The 'Words of Art' game is more an ideological battle of who has control or power to define words and what their meanings are.

Just as attorners want you to believe common law is "judge-made" law. I can find you books from law professors or even government websites that give a far different definition of common law than what an attorney says.

Seems it is all a battle of thoughts and beliefs. In that same regard, people believe they have to register or apply for this, that, and the other when there is no such compulsion legally or otherwise.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[weishaupt1776]

[Jerry Pitts]

Not only 'awesome', but also 'inspired'. This thread is truly heading in the right direction, IMHO.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Michael Badnarik has stated that many of the words used in law have been changed to suit various interests. The 'Words of Art' game is more an ideological battle of who has control or power to define words and what their meanings are.

Just as attorners want you to believe common law is "judge-made" law. I can find you books from law professors or even government websites that give a far different definition of common law than what an attorney says.

Seems it is all a battle of thoughts and beliefs. In that same regard, people believe they have to register or apply for this, that, and the other when there is no such compulsion legally or otherwise.

Regards,
netwrkranger

Without Prejudice.
More like they are out to outright deceive. The battlefield is definitely the mind. A loose interpretation of the word commerce combined with the likes of "trading with the enemy act" is likely to do with nothing but power.

And the reason they want folks to have birth certificates, insurance, driver licenses and so forth is to twist and turn people into commercial venue and apply joint and several liability.

[There is also an interesting thing concerning the word "TRADER" and its meaning in bankruptcy jurisprudence...perhaps I can post about that later.]

Not only 'awesome', but also 'inspired'. This thread is truly heading in the right direction, IMHO.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

P.S. One might find a connection to references to "merchants of the earth", "buying or selling" in the Book of Revelations. This might be significant for overcoming information for overcoming the deception with the truth.

[netwrkranger]

... of George Gordon's frequent admonishments of doing business with the Ca'naanite traffickers.

Actually, those would be God's admonishments for that through the Bible.

- netwrkranger

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
I intended to modify the previous post to add revelations I had about Canannites being merchants and a goal to trick us all into merchant status.

This next comment is probably worth another thread but to sum up...based on looking at various sources the word 'trader' applied to the bankrupt. If you look at the word bankrupt its bank + rupt. A banker is a type of merchants. That is, it may very well be that a merchant is the only sort that can ever be bankrupt. That is, they expansion of bankruptcy laws to artificiers or non-merchants might have been one of the most devious things.

The presumed connection between bankruptcy and fraud was echoed in other sources and other places. The Imperial Discipline Ordinance of 1548 spoke of "ruined merchants" who engaged in insecure—and, hence, fraudulent—credit transactions and suffered bankruptcy because of carelessness or waste. They were to be treated as common thieves. In England, the Tudor Act Touching Orders for Bankrupts of 1571 limited the term to indicate "traders" or "merchants" who "craftily obtaining into their hands great substance of other men's goods, do suddenly flee to parts unknown, or keep their houses, not minding to pay or restore to any their creditors, their debts and duties, but at their wills and pleasures, consume the substance obtained by credit of other men, for their own pleasure and delicate living, against all reason, equity and good conscience. . . ." Thus, bankruptcy existed in relationship to credit (which was considered a morally ambiguous entity), competence, and crime, all indicators of a crisis in the conduct and conception of business.

So the notion is that bankruptcy may have only ever been meant to deal with merchants/traders who had stored up goods or were warehousing valuables and do to fraud or negligence were not able to honor the demands. [Sound like anyone's dealings with Bank of *merica?] MAYBE THE ONES WHO ARE BANKRUPT AND TRYING TO GET YOU TO JOIN THEM IN BANKRUPTCY. But to do that just maybe they had to set out to deceive you into thinking you were a merchant or giving the appearance of being a merchant.

How can all artificiers or craftsmans be bankrupt if they always have the ability to produce something and set any value thereupon? If they are not a banker with a bank to rupt?

Compare:

[1] the speculative traders, merchants or bankers who or store up goods or resources OF OTHERS and who do nothing to add value to anything, who for some reason cannot meet the obligations of due to their squandering, fraud or misuse of the resources of their clients...

with

[2] The craftsman who buys gold or silver to make jewelry with such who runs out of funds but still has the gold, silver and skill.

OR COMPARE:

An auto mechanic with tools who does not issue commercial paper who might have too little or too much work...

vs.

A speculative middleman mercantile trader who cannot meet their own commercial paper obligations.

The non-merchant mechanic doesnt have commercial paper to honor. The trader does!

COMPARE

[1] the skilled software developer who develops $10M technology [Abel]

with

[2] the unskilled brother who wants his brother dead [or indebted] or otherwise kills his brother so he can take his stuff and prosper from it. [Caananite]

***

Now apparently bankruptcy jurisprudence has used the word 'trader' apparently to include SOME artificiers--and it may be a word at least in statute--that is more broad in meaning than the word cmmerce. The word trade outside bankruptcy jurisprudence might not have the same meaning.

A bankrupt was before defined to be "a trader, who secretes himself, or does certain other acts, tending to defraud his creditors. [From Blackstones Commentaries]

[Friendsplacect]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

This clause gives unlimitted power to the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that by abstaining from commerce you substantially affect commerce and therefore fall under the power of the commerce clause. That means by removing your self from regulated commerce you are thereby under the regulation jurisdiction anyway. There is no way out. It will turn ugly someday. Having kids will someday be a burden on commerce.

Like the Federal Legislation on toilet bowls