Unfortunately, Trump (Federal Government) has Total Economic Power

I urge folks to read my book Defending Freedom of Contract to understand why the Federal Government has total power over the economy. The original meaning of the commerce clause in the constitution was to protect trade between the states, but Supreme Court precedent has changed that meaning to include everything that is economic including manufacturing, wages, hours, child labor, and even intrastate trade. The change in the meaning of the commerce clause happened gradually over time. It began early in American history with the Marshall Court's ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden. In this case, the meaning of the commerce clause was changed from trade to a more ambiguous meaning of intercourse.

By the time the FDR court came around they changed the meaning of commerce to include anything that may have even a minute impact on commerce including intrastate trade. In Wickard v. Filburn the FDR court ruled that a farmer could not grow more wheat on his farm than dictated by the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) even if the excess wheat would go to feed his livestock and family. Unfortunately, this horrible ruling was upheld in Raich v. Gonzalez only a few short years ago. Raich denied a terminally ill woman the right to grow marijuana for self use. In fact, Raich protected the illegal marijuana market at the expense of Raich's civil rights. Actually, Wickard and Raich would essentially deny anyone the right to have a garden of any kind because it would a have a minute impact on commerce. It has not come to that yet, but we are very close. During the Coronavirus epidemic, Michigan Governor Whitmer denied persons the right to garden.

Now, everyone is up in arms and saying States have rights protected by the 10th Amendment. That is true, but the 10th amendment was turned into a truism with little meaning by the FDR Court in U.S. v. Darby Lumber: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." This decision was upheld in Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority, but was overturned in National League of Cities v. Usery. Around this time conservative courts have tried diminish some of the damage of Wickard and Darby Lumber. In United States v. Morrison, United States v. Lopez, and United States v. Bond the court upheld 10th amendment arguments against the commerce clause. In Morrison, Lopez, and Bond the Court held that economic rights protected by the commerce clause did not extend to criminal behavior. After all, the federal government only has the authority to prosecute very few types of crimes in the Constitution: Slavery, crimes against the nation, treason, and counterfeiting. That is it! That said, the reemergence of the 10th amendment still did not stop federal control over all economic activities. The courts have done a similar thing to the 9th Amendment. The Constitution is short and our Founders had a purpose for every word and clause. They did not intend for clauses and amendments to be ignored.

The founders did not place any hierarchy of powers in the Constitution. In other words, all clauses and amendments had equal weighting. But the Court found ways around that by claiming the 9th and 10th amendments were truism. The 11th amendment was used to trump the contract clause because it was a newer provision. Even today, not all amendments are held to the same regard. The bottom line is if one amendment or clause fails then the law should fail. But this is not how things are done and the 10th amendment has very little clout also being trumped by the 14th amendment in many modern cases.

States may rely on some compelling reason such as the safety of the American public over the coronavirus to stop federal authority. But public health goes both ways since an economic collapse will also affect the mental and physical health of Americans.

The history of the Supreme Court is littered with precedent of allowing governments the right to infringe on the rights of Americans (behind the guise of health and safety) even when the ends do not justify the means. Take for instance the Slaughter House Cases. In these cases, the Court held Louisiana could permanently deny butchers the right to work that profession in an attempt to protect the city of New Orleans from disease. This may sound legitimate, but some basic guidelines for eliminating waste from butchers shops could have prevented disease without eliminating butcher businesses.

The bottom line, the SCOTUS has provided the federal government complete authority over any economic conditions. This is not right, but it is the law because of liberal power grabs.