Congressional Duty = Prybar & Shears

The Federal Constitution identifies that the Federal government serves three primary purposes: National Defense, Equal Justice and Fair Trade.  Congress is the primary overseer of Fair Trade.  Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution charges Congress with the responsibility "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"  The regulation of commerce among the several states means that no state should have an undue advantage over the others.  In other words, the point of regulating commerce between states is to keep access to the market on a level playing field for all sellers and all buyers no matter what state they live in.  The idea of regulating commerce, however, has been corrupted into meaning that Congress has the right to tell people how to run their businesses.  Congress dictates what rules and regulations must be followed.  The Federal Constitution does not explicitly provide this power and authority.


The overall vision for Congress is to be an UN-doer... the ultimate authority to ELIMINATE oppressive restriction.  The symbols of Congress should be a prybar and shears: the prybar to lift and remove the heavy burdens of oppressive agencies from the backs of private business; the shears to cut through the red-tape of rules and regulations that limit private business from thriving and serving the people directly.


Regulating commerce among the several states does not mean creating national organizations that regulate commerce and trade of the business owners... it means what it says... regulating (making regular) the commerce among the states - meaning that the rules created by the states should not unduly benefit some citizens/business owners while oppressing others.  One state should not be able to impose import or export taxes traded between itself and any other state.  In essence, this clause is supposed to function as an internal NAFTA treaty, meaning that the states remain free to regulate commerce, but regulations that impinge upon free trade may be appealed to Congress for relief.

Following this much simpler understanding of the commerce clause would reduce the burden on Congress considerably (and thus reduce the corruption inherent in micromanaging interpersonal commerce from a distant and impersonal one-size-fits-all government).  Let's look at the Gulf Oil Spill as a famous example.  There are only five states that border the Gulf of Mexico - Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.  Activities in the Gulf therefore should only be under the jurisdiction of these five states, not the Federal government.  Federal policies should inherently be restricted to issues or concerns that affect all of the states.

So how do these five states deal with drilling policies in the Gulf?  The answer is quite simple - they form a five-state commission that oversees commercial use of the Gulf of Mexico.  In whatever way those five states decide to do it, they are free to establish their own governing body to oversee oil production, shipping, fishing, travel and tourism or any other aspect of their shared resource.  Perhaps they agree to an equal representation of all the states involved.  Perhaps they agree to a representation based on the amount of coastline each state has upon the gulf.  The point is that no Federal jurisdiction is authorized in the Federal Constitution to tell anyone in these five states how to use their own natural resource.

If this understanding is applied nationwide we can see quickly that there cannot be any National organizations that oversee land use.  The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, violates the principle that the States have authority over their own land.  Likewise the Department of the Interior also steps on the same authority - all "National Parks" exist within existing borders of states or territories and should be under the jurisdiction and authority of those same states and territories.  Any parks that border more than one state (such as Yellowstone) would require either a multi-state authority to oversee it or the division of the existing park into components that conform to the boundaries of each state.  Either way, no Federal involvement is required.

This understanding of State versus Federal jurisdiction would even translate into the dissolution of the Federal Department of Transportation.  Even though the National Highway System does indeed touch every state, it occupies land completely contained within the borders of each state and therefore falls under State jurisdiction, not Federal jurisdiction.  So how do the states ensure continuity in the National Highway System?  By regulating it themselves through their own joint commission (not through Federal intervention).

Currently each state sets its own requirements for people to serve as professionals in such fields as Teachers, Attorneys, Physicians, Nurses, Psychologists and even Cosmetology (hair stylists).  There is no inherent reason for any authority above the state level to regulate any business or trade.  When regulations between states are in significant conflict, however, the Federal Constitution does provide the opportunity for Congress to intercede, but the nature of the intervention should be to regulate (make regular) the policies between the states, not to impose any standards beyond those already required within the majority of the states.