:p yes it appears that way

deadcode even a rather conservative modern reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause as well as the Commerce Clause, would argue that the Federal Government should be in the business of regulating environmental issues that can interfere with commerce as well as with the other rights granted by the bill of rights.

Now, as a libertarian you should take plenty of umbrage with the EPA. I am no fan of the agency for a number of reasons, but you should not be arguing that we should have no environmental regulations. First because that is asinine and second because it is asinine.

As for my statement about the 1780's, that was a comment on the fact that the constitution lives and breaths and has been amended over the years. Also it isn't the 1780's and the world we live in now wasn't the world the founders lived in, so we shouldn't treat it like it is.

Also pollution and waste is commerce, even without the regulations we have it would be commerce, tell companies like Clean Harbors, Waste Management or any number of the companies that make emission control devices that they aren't involved in commerce.

@Sam,

I disagree. Necessary and Proper Clause was always considered to be a potential for government abuse; and was argued over endlessly. Patrick Henry spoke of it's use to give the government unlimited power; Madison and Hamilton disagreed that this would happen. It has happened and the Constitution was not written with this intent. Very well documented in the Federalist papers and the resulting debates.

Once again; I'm not arguing that there should be no environmental regulations. I'm only arguing that the states are the proper places for these regulations to be voted on and implemented (ie. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution).

In response to your comments about interpreting it differently because of the period of time; Once again, the constitution is a contract; and must be interpreted by the original intent. If you want the document to change over time; there is provisions in the document for that to be possible (ie. Amendments).

Pollution is not inherently commerce just because it's possible to sell. If it were being sold then it would be commerce but if not then it isn't.

Likewise; if I throw a paper airplane over a state line it is not commerce; even though someone, somewhere sells paper.

In regards into the Federal Governments ability to regulate the navigable waters of the US under the commerce clause a law in one state that allows for a certain action that limits the ability of other states to engage in commerce could be directly tied to an action involving pollution. This goes back to the basic original framers intent of the clause.

So dead admits he's wrong now?

I think BO just came just a little.

If you say, "yes" Deadcode, you officially made BO cum, and that makes you a bit more gayer. Just for some food for thought.

don't tease me dead

@Sam,

I think we are getting closer to the core of this issue. If only the federal government was forced to keep its environmental regulations within the box of the interstate commerce clause.

In other words; only when it pertains to two interstate situations; and only when they are able to prove that commerce was limited. This would make 99% of the regulations invalid.

I'm still really uncomfortable with the interstate commerce clause being used this way though. Once again, the original reason for the ICC was to stop states from placing tariffs on goods being received from other states. This very drastically reduced commerce between states. I think it is pretty clear that most of the environmental regulations put in place by the feds are more destructive commerce-wise then the things they are allegedly protecting us from. And I think you would agree with me to say that the original intent of environmental regulation was not to help commerce.

So in closing; if the feds only used the ICC in the narrow definition you describe above; I wouldn't be as much of an opposition to it; but it is not being used to protect commerce; it is just used as a grab on power.

@BO, BHO: I'm not sure what you guys are referring to.