I'm citing this article because of the extensive links. This article cites S.C. case
Wickard v. Filburn, which was not an end to these deliberations. See United States v. Lopez
Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce”Reestablish the states’ control over commerce within their borders
Iowa, Florida and New Hampshire
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=hf380Quote:
Sec. 2. NEW SECTION . 554E.2 Legislative intent.
3.Under Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States, the
federal government is empowered to regulate commerce among the several states.
4. The power to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people
under the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
5. During the constitutional convention, the founders considered and rejected a plan
which would have authorized the federal government to not only regulate commerce
among the several states, but also any activity having spillover effects across state
lines.
Quote:
House File 380 in Iowa reaffirms that the Constitution grants the federal government
the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but the power to regulate
intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people under the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments. The bill goes on to declare:
All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the
boundaries of this state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries
of this state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall
not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress
of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.
If the bill passes into law, any agent attempting to enforce federal law in violation
of the act would be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor and subject to appropriate
penalties.
Quote:
The Iowa bill, sponsored by Rep. Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill), was initially filed
in Feb. 2011 and will carry over into the 2012 session. Senate File 272, introduced
at the same time by Sen. Kent Sorenson, serves as the companion bill.
A second Senate bill, Senate File 385, with 11 co-sponsors, proposes even stricter
penalties. It would make it a class D felony to enforce any federal law interfering
with intrastate commerce – that’s commerce within Iowa’s borders.
More recently the Florida Senate bill (-SJ 68) was Introduced on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:28 AM.
http://myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=47760&Quote:
General Bill by Evers
Intrastate Commerce: Citing this act as the "Intrastate Commerce Act"; providing that certain goods grown, manufactured, or made in this state and services performed in this state are not subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce; prohibiting any official, agent, or employee of the Federal Government or of the state from attempting to enforce federal laws, rules, or regulations in violation of the act; providing penalties; providing for application, etc.
It is my dream that a State might grow a pair. Have to see what happens.