One Nation, Under God (WAS: OT lurk)

[Jane O' Sweet]

kevin at limits.org wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 4 May 2001, pynchon-l-digest wrote:
> > ------------------------------
> > From: "Jane O' Sweet" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
> >
> > John Peacock wrote:
> > > A while ago Ms Sweet implied that the EU was a Nation. You could get
> > shouted at quite badly claiming that sort of thing around here. It's a
> > hotly contested issue. Probably best to think of it, even at this late
> > stage, as a trading bloc.
> >
> > You could get your bra strap snapped over here for making
> > such claims too. Of course we still have men carrying guns
> > in Texas believing they are a Nation State like any in the
> > EU, but these  United States of America, those United States
> > of Mexico and those United Provinces of Canada are United by
> > free trade and w/o it, we will have not only two Canada's,
> > but 85 Nation States raising flags and marching over the
> > fields of the poor.
> 
> Terrance--
> I don't know a plum durn thing about our continental neighbors, but the
> United States of America are united by the Constitution.  To say that free
> trade is what unites them is like saying that they are united by God or a
> common heritage or the brave deeds of the men buried at Gettysburg or a
> love of "Gilligan's Island" reruns -- it may be true, but it's also
> meaningless from a political/governmental standpoint.

Isn't Interstate Commerce a integral aspect of U.S.
constitutional law and US "democratic" rule?  In these
United States any and all commercial transactions or
traffics that cross state boundaries or that
involve more than one state is, under the law of these
United States, Interstate Commerce.  This a  traditional USA
concept. We the people believe and have made law so  that
the free flow of commerce between states shall  not be
impeded. This legal ground  has been used to effect a wide
range of regulations, both federal and state. And I think a
further extension of the established notion regarding the 
free flow of trade was introduced when Title II of the 1964
Civil Rights Act dealing with discriminatory
practices in public accommodations was upheld by the Supreme
Court of these United States.  The court decided that a
business, although  operating within a single state, could
affect Interstate Commerce with its restrictive laws and
was, therefore, at
odds  with the federal legislation that proved to be
enabling of the Constitution's commerce clause.