Stop In The Name Of The Law?

In his book, The End of Free Enterprise: A Declaration of Independence, Murray Rothbard, the great philosopher and intellectual of the modern conservative movement, writes, “The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from restricting conduct that constitutes protected activity under the First Amendment.” This is an important issue, but it isn’t a very clear cut one.

For instance, does the U.S. Congress have a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce? Yes, it does, but it doesn’t have the legal authority or constitutional status to do so under the First Amendment. Does the U.S. Constitution give the states the right to prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquor into their states? Yes, it does, but again, it does not have the constitutional authority or constitutional status to do so.

Now, let’s say that we were to decide to amend our Constitution to change the way Congress regulates interstate commerce, such as with the creation of a Federal Trade Commission that had the constitutional authority to enforce such laws? Would such an amendment be constitutional?

The same goes for the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the Federal Reserve. Would such a commission really have the constitutional authority to regulate the operations of the Federal Reserve by enforcing the statutes passed by Congress?

If we don’t know whether or not such a commission has the constitutional authority to prevent an illegal banking system, it becomes increasingly difficult for us as citizens of this country to make sure that the laws are being implemented in a manner that serves the interests of the American people. You see, this isn’t just an argument, it’s an examination of the whole concept of what a constitutional republic is all about.

Some will argue that the framers of the Constitution didn’t have the proper information to determine such issues, but I submit to you that this is a faulty argument. It would be much more reasonable if those framers, having been drafters of the U.S. Constitution in addition to having been well versed in the workings of international banking, could have easily made these determinations.

Some may argue that the Federal Trade Commission has the ultimate power to regulate all of our lives and activities, but I would submit to you that such an assumption is not only unreasonable but also unjust. and certainly not in the best interest of the American people.

So, how do we stop in the name of the law from limiting free enterprise in America? We need to take a long hard look at all of the issues we have inherited from the Constitution and ask ourselves whether or not the Federal Trade Commission is doing its job.

This agency should not be permitted to write such legislation unless Congress authorizes them to do so and has given such authorization by law. But it does, which makes me wonder why we don’t have such laws.

Shouldn’t the Federal Trade Commission be able to tell its members that they can’t use their position to lobby for laws to benefit their own political party or candidates? That is to say, is the agency not serving the will of the American people?

Doesn’t such a position limit the ability of the agency to write such laws and prevent such a bill from ever reaching the President’s desk? This is not what a constitutional republic is all about.

When in doubt, ask your Congressional delegation. Ask them if they support such a change in the Constitution and vote for such legislation, because such a change is something you have to consider.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *