Constitutional Amendment 28
 

Further limiting the power of congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations but limited to nothing more than import and export tariffs, so long as tariff costs do not become prohibitive or greater than 8% of the cost of each individual item. Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states but limited to regulating taxes placed on items shipped to other states, taxes on how those items are moved from state to state, and taxes on sales of those items in other states after shipping, but none of these taxes can be prohibitive and no laws shall be made that prohibit possession by any fee citizen in any state. Congress shall no longer have power to regulate commerce with any Indian tribe. Commerce with Indian tribes will now be relegated to the states.

With all the talk nowadays of legalizing marijuana, taxing it, making revenue, and the lack of 'options' for people to bypass congress in making the peoples will, law, I propose that we all submit the above for national ratification.

I have never tried marijuana. I support its legalization. However, one must admit we are in a tremendous minority. To say, "....making the people's will law..." is a bit of a stretch.

I, too, support its legalization. Think of the money we could save if we quit fighting this impossible-to-win war on drugs. Plus, I don't really care what people do to themselves. As long as it doesn't hurt me, have at.

Would be nice, but I doubt that Congress would ever give us 2/3 of both houses. About the only way this becomes an amendment, in my opinion, is through a Constitutional Convention, problem with such an option, is that no telling what we'd also get via a convention.

getting congress and the senate to agree to limit their power is the biggest hurdle. what would have to be done is to find enough people in each state with a particular interest of theirs that is hampered by a federal law using the commerce clause and show them how this amendment would improve their interest.

I agree with all of it except the import tariffs. I believe we should be able and we should in times of crisis like NOW, be able to raise tariffs temporarily (a period of 5 to 10 years) to a level that makes the import competitive and not undercutting our own goods. This is so that we may rebuild our own industries, tax base and infrastructures. To limit import tariffs as we have been is suicidal and has been proven to be more damaging to us than helpful.

Now, in exchange for protecting our industry, they have to prove that they are paying livable wages, giving fair benefits and developing competitive priced product so that when the tariff is lifted they can still compete without having to cut quality, jobs or the tax base created.

Now, if a foreign company wishes to come in and start manufacturing here, so long as they abide by our laws pay taxes and not get abatements and tax writeoffs for opening a factory... then the product they make here should be exempt from the tariffs, but all product they import is still subjugated to tariff.

well that's the catch, isn't it....

With this provision...

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states but limited to regulating taxes placed on items shipped to other states, taxes on how those items are moved from state to state, and taxes on sales of those items in other states after shipping...

...I think you just opened the door to a national sales tax, particularly a tax on sales through the internet.

hmmmm, good catch. i'll have to revisit that.

The commerce clause has a lot more implications beyond just taxation--most notably, the ability to prevent prisoner dilemmas amongst states (licensing fees, tractor-trailer lengths etc.). In the larger scheme of things it prevents horrific factionalism and inefficiency amongst the national and international markets.

That being said, I think the Commerce clause is greatly over-bloated from what it was originally meant to be (Congress regulating gun free zones? WTF does that have to do w/ Commerce? [see U.S. v. Lopez]). Nonetheless, it still serves some legitimate purposes not readily apparent.