FDA,FCC,SEC - Can The Government Overturn The Constitutional Right Through Treaties?
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Well the working title for this thread was simply:
FDA Gets "Broad New Powers": Poises To Eat Constitution
... based on this article that came up on yahoo news:
FDA Set To Get Broad New Powers
But then i found this very compelling series of articles written by the infamous (in Tax "Protestor" circles) Larry Becraft, constitutional lawyer, and tax truth leader par excellence.
Jurisdiction Questioned - Part I
Treaties Empower Congress To Ignore States Rights - Part II
FDA, DEA Find Basis In International Treaties - Part III
I'll be honest, I don't really know how to feel about the FDA, and its ever expanding authority.
Strictly speaking, the FDA is an unconstitutional agency.
Like the FCC and the SEC (among others) it exceeds the limits imposed on the Federal Government by our forefathers. Namely, any power not expressly given to the congress shall be reserved to the people and the states.
Yet it seems that our lovely ever expanding Federal Government found away around this based on the constitutional authority to enter in to treaties with foreign governments.
Reading The Federalist Papers, the forefathers start with a laundry list of reasons why a single government to rule the states is necessary. Very early on, in Federalist Paper 4 (i think?) they make it clear that one of the reasons for needing a unified Federal Government involves treaties with foreign nations, arguing that a soverign group of confederacies would be less likely to be able to come to agreement on the nature of foregin treaties and more likely to jeopardize the welfare of the citizens of all the land by one confederate set of states angering a foreign power and bringing harm to all the confederacies -- they go on an on about this and the myriad ways that it is true. But nowhere in the Fed Papers do they mention anything about the need for foreign treaties to regulate matters internal to the states.
Does anyone see a serious conflict of soverign right here?
Lets try to seperate the issues.
Sure, some of the things the FDA, SEC, and [to me, much more arguably] the FCC provide us are of merit. I suppose the regulation of drug quality is decent. Ensuring meat in not rancid or posioned is probably good. Keeping companies honest? Sure.
Okay, so some of their functions are of merit.
But are these "institutions" which gain their authority from foreign treaties, that in essence are about trade, the best way to implement such functions?
Further, i think this question begs a even more relevant question, and one which Mr. Becraft did not touch on...
... if the constitutional restrictions on the jurisdiction of congress can be superceeded to affect matters regarding food, drugs, communication, and commerce ... what else can they get away with?
I don't know if i mean that to be open ended or not.
We could look at it.
I suppose one would have to look for other areas of potential power that are tangible. I mean, these agencies regulate commodities... things negotiable to treaties with foreign nations.
My intent here is to explore the possibility for further assault on our natural and constitutionaly protected rights.
Lets try to think about this.
FDA Gets "Broad New Powers": Poises To Eat Constitution
... based on this article that came up on yahoo news:
FDA Set To Get Broad New Powers
But then i found this very compelling series of articles written by the infamous (in Tax "Protestor" circles) Larry Becraft, constitutional lawyer, and tax truth leader par excellence.
Jurisdiction Questioned - Part I
Treaties Empower Congress To Ignore States Rights - Part II
FDA, DEA Find Basis In International Treaties - Part III
I'll be honest, I don't really know how to feel about the FDA, and its ever expanding authority.
Strictly speaking, the FDA is an unconstitutional agency.
Like the FCC and the SEC (among others) it exceeds the limits imposed on the Federal Government by our forefathers. Namely, any power not expressly given to the congress shall be reserved to the people and the states.
Yet it seems that our lovely ever expanding Federal Government found away around this based on the constitutional authority to enter in to treaties with foreign governments.
Reading The Federalist Papers, the forefathers start with a laundry list of reasons why a single government to rule the states is necessary. Very early on, in Federalist Paper 4 (i think?) they make it clear that one of the reasons for needing a unified Federal Government involves treaties with foreign nations, arguing that a soverign group of confederacies would be less likely to be able to come to agreement on the nature of foregin treaties and more likely to jeopardize the welfare of the citizens of all the land by one confederate set of states angering a foreign power and bringing harm to all the confederacies -- they go on an on about this and the myriad ways that it is true. But nowhere in the Fed Papers do they mention anything about the need for foreign treaties to regulate matters internal to the states.
Does anyone see a serious conflict of soverign right here?
Lets try to seperate the issues.
Sure, some of the things the FDA, SEC, and [to me, much more arguably] the FCC provide us are of merit. I suppose the regulation of drug quality is decent. Ensuring meat in not rancid or posioned is probably good. Keeping companies honest? Sure.
Okay, so some of their functions are of merit.
But are these "institutions" which gain their authority from foreign treaties, that in essence are about trade, the best way to implement such functions?
Further, i think this question begs a even more relevant question, and one which Mr. Becraft did not touch on...
... if the constitutional restrictions on the jurisdiction of congress can be superceeded to affect matters regarding food, drugs, communication, and commerce ... what else can they get away with?
I don't know if i mean that to be open ended or not.
We could look at it.
I suppose one would have to look for other areas of potential power that are tangible. I mean, these agencies regulate commodities... things negotiable to treaties with foreign nations.
My intent here is to explore the possibility for further assault on our natural and constitutionaly protected rights.
Lets try to think about this.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Okay. I gave it some thought myself.
The problem i ran up against in thinking of further ways in which our rights could be violated was that ... well ... food, drugs, commerce, and communication covers a goddamn awful lot to begin with.
I mean, they have already infringed on just about every tangible commodity in some respect already.
What else could they regulate?
Well,
I guess a good starting place would be the other 'tangible commodities' piece.
The SEC regulates commerce, but only in the sense that it directs what is acceptable practice for markets and stock trade. It doesn't really regulate the goods themselves.
So that leaves us with a broader spectrum to 'work with' than i thought.
Ok. Here is a thought.
Lets just take a specific commodity that is subject to debate already:
automobiles
How could the government, at the federal level, strip us of our right to choose an automobile?
How about emissions? Ok, the states do that already, but some states don't. I believe Michigan and South Carolina are two that do not.
Is it conceivable then that the Federal Government, in all its infinite wisdom decide that emissions must be controlled on a global scale ... they could then enter in to a treaties with another country and thereby declare that we can only by Honda Fits or Kias or what-have-you because only those cars meet the emissions standards of this treaties, and well, you know there has never been any question as to if the constitution provides for the Federal Government to regulate emissions, which afterall are important to all humanity, and therefore must be regulated globally
... hey wait a minute ... this almost reminds me of Kyoto ... I wonder what that would have meant? I think that is another example right there! Kyoto could have been the next addition ... a foreign treaty with broad ranging implications for personal liberty and right to choose.
Again, not sure that regulating emissions is necessarily bad ...
can anyone come up with something else which is a bit more outlandish? a bit more Orwellian? disturbing?
If I opened it now would you not understand?