Michael Tavoliero: Time to overturn the court decision that established excessive federal regulation

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

Overturning Roe v. Wade was an undeniable imperative. The repeal ended what was the most malevolent federal government intrusion into our lives.

The emotional turmoil caused by terminating pregnancies under the guise of governmental medical authority and convenience was one of the most egregious civil policies ever conceived by those claiming to be Americans. With that said, while it appears we have successfully protected the unborn at the federal level, we may have missed an important opportunity.

That opportunity lies in our understanding of the underlying factors that allowed a case like Roe v. Wade to reach the Supreme Court in the first place. Like many traps set in our political universe, we focused on the immediate and obvious target. But did we miss the real issue, especially given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Roe v. Wade was influenced by a series of SCOTUS decisions that broadened the understanding of the Commerce Clause, upheld substantive due process rights, and recognized a constitutional right to privacy, where none exists.

But the single abusive expansion of federal power through the Commerce Clause is found in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. This case, decided on April 12, 1937, contributed to a false legal and regulatory environment where the federal government played an ignoble role in the false flag assertion of protecting individual rights, thereby conning the American people.

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.” We are talking “to regulate commerce…among states” Five words.

Prior to NLRB, Congress’s role was limited by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. After NLRB, Katie bar the door.

The legal landscape that led to the egregious expansion of federal power, the rise of unelected bureaucrats, the cancerous growth of the federal government, and the influence of both the deep and shallow states, which culminated in Roe v. Wade, was set in motion 36 years before Roe v. Wade was decided.

While the term “shallow state” is not commonly used or defined in political discussions, it refers to the visible yet unaccountable aspect of government operations that, due to NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., operates outside of congressional control and public accountability. Unlike the secretive, unaccountable, and malevolent deep state, the shallow state functions in the open, influenced by public unions, mass media, and the Democratic Party.

With NLRB, Americans through our highest court in the land have given the federal bureaucracy unlimited growth, a blank check paid by the American taxpayer and full authority and control over our American society, lives and future in literally every dimension of our existence. 

There are few of us alive who understand the disaster this case has brought to the lives of our parents, our lives and the futures of our American families.

Unelected bureaucrats oversee our country and not those various elected officials we all believe in for “hope and change”. Let that sink in.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. led to the collapse of state sovereignty. 

By expanding the federal government’s regulatory power over activities that have any impact on interstate commerce, the ruling erased the role of states in regulating local economic activities and labor relations. Take a moment and analyze the precursors to this case. The 16th and 17th Amendments, the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Act, the Jones Act and a myriad of federal laws and regulations opened the gate to this through the Wilson administration in 1913 as part of the Progressive Movement.

This case chilled and nullified the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. By the overbroad and vague interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Court effectively allowed federal encroachment into areas traditionally managed by states. Since we are discussing a timespan of almost 90 years, few of us have any memory nor experience of what that used to be like, which contributes to false historic revisioning.

This precedent established the excessive federal regulation of our economy. Effectively killing private sector growth in favor of the public sector flourishing. This regulatory overreach stifles business innovation increases compliance costs and hampers economic growth by imposing uniform standards that are not suitable for all regions or industries as our country is a diversified demographic and geographic tapestry.

The consequences of centralized planning and extensive federal regulation distort free market mechanisms. Market forces, rather than federal regulations, should dictate labor relations and economic activities to ensure efficiency and innovation.

Certainly, because of the NLRB decision, America’s courts engage in judicial activism by expanding the scope of the Commerce Clause beyond its original intent. The Framers of the Constitution did not envision such an expansive role for the federal government in regulating economic activities that are local in nature.

Because of this decision, we see the further expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause with no limits to its growth. Subsequent cases, such as Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Darby (1941), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and others, where the federal government used this precedent to justify regulation in areas only tangentially related to interstate commerce, thus continually expanding federal authority.

Federal labor regulations, enabled by the NLRB decision, have made labor markets more rigid and closed to innovation, because the public and private union sectors are now primarily focused on power and control, instead of its original calling, better labor conditions and relations.

Strict labor laws and union protections reduce flexibility for businesses, making it harder to adapt to changing economic conditions and leading to higher unemployment and reduced competitiveness. Therefore, we on ground zero observe and experience global corporate behemoths whose sustenance is derived off a menu of government favors, mass media support and public sector control over regulatory institutions influencing the social and cultural development of our public.

Federal environmental regulations, justified under the Commerce Clause, impose undue and harsh burdens on businesses and local governments, inhibiting economic development and infringing on states’ rights to manage their own natural resources.

The federal oversight of labor relations is slow, bureaucratic, and disconnected from the specific needs of local economies. State or local control would improve outcomes with more tailored and efficient management of labor issues.

The expansion of federal regulatory power encompasses all aspects of American life, including healthcare, housing, banking, energy, education, food, and drugs. This has led to the creation of numerous agencies and sub-agencies with billion dollar budgets, totaling 438 entities that regulate every stage of our existence, from conception to death.

This perverted view of the Commerce Clause today justifies such sweeping federal regulations oversteps the intended scope of federal authority. 

It’s time to overturn NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Michael Tavoliero is a writer at Must Read Alaska.