9 Comments
Jun 2, 2023·edited Jun 2, 2023Liked by John Klar

Am I reading this correctly? If I grow enough tomatoes to supply my family with all the sauce, paste, stewed, and dehydrated tomatoes that we could possibly use in a year ... that this affects interstate commerce therefore the federal government could regulate it if it so chooses too? Is this a real precedent down to the home gardener? Or is it only if I double that number and then also sell some tomatoes? The federal government could not possibly care about my 45 tomato plants.

Expand full comment

Hey, John. Good essay. Are you up for a bit of relevant international perspective?

In February of this year, Chinese officials made 4 public statements through which China defined its official position on the authority of international law as represented in the UN charter, and positioned that declaration of support for UN governance over-against the United States' “rules based order,” which is the framework by which the US government seeks to tell other countries what they can and cannot do.

The first of those public statements, a position paper titled "The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils," opened with a thematic statement that is germane to your post. To wit:

“The United States has a longstanding practice of exerting frequent long-arm jurisdiction over other countries, including both its allies and countries with which it has hostile or strained relations. In recent years, the practice has kept expanding in scope, with U.S. "arms" stretching longer and longer. Examining cases of U.S. abuse of long-arm jurisdiction, this report lays bare the severe harm it has done to the international political and economic order and the international rule of law.”

What follows are examples of US jurisdictional overreach that are traced to the 1945 US Supreme Court case that allowed long-arm jurisdiction by US domestic state courts that previously could not exercise jurisdictions on persons legally domiciled in other states. The Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that changed the trajectory of US Federal government actions by declaring that so long as an individual has some “minimum contact” with another state, that state can bring that individual before its bar of justice.

That effectively changed one's legal citizenship from one's state to the nation. It undercut the sovereignty of states in the bargain.

On that “long-arm jurisdiction” foundation, the Chinese article contends, the US began to extend in personam jurisdiction in civil and commercial cases even to residents of other countries so long as those persons had “a real and sufficient connection” to the US. The question, of course, is how to determine what qualifies as a “real and sufficient” connection.

Initially, the bar was set rather high, but over time the threshold for application of the principle was lowered to the point that “even the flimsiest connection with the United States, such as having a branch in the United States, [or] using U.S. dollar[s] for clearing or other financial services, or using the U.S. mail system, constitutes 'minimum contacts,'” reads the Chinese paper. Now, the Chinese maintain, all that is required for the US to exercise legal jurisdiction is for an action somewhere in the world to produce nebulous “effects” in the United States, regardless of whether the person is a citizen of the US or not, nor whether what the individual did was legal in her own legal jurisdiction when she did it.

This is the origin and justification of the so-called rules based order promulgated by the US, and by which the US now regularly enforces its “unwarranted jurisdiction” by “wantonly penalizing or threatening foreign companies by exploiting their reliance on dollar-denominated businesses, the U.S. market or U.S. technology.”

Put another way, this is how the US weaponizes our national power and financial hegemony. And these practices have been expanding as the US steadily lowers the threshold of “minimum contact” in order to advance its “hegemonic diplomacy” in pursuit of its own economic interests without regard to the sovereignty of other countries or the importance of negotiated rules of international conduct. Rather, the Chinese document asserts, the US “blatantly meddles in others' internal affairs, seriously damages the legitimate interests of other countries, and disrupts the normal order of international exchanges.”

These days, the US increasingly uses unilateral sanctions even against countries that have done nothing wrong, not even according to US “rules.” They can be sanctioned for choosing to not join US sanctions against some other country that has run afoul of our rules. But that's not legal at the international level; it's simply pure power projection. US unilateral sanctions have nothing to do with the consensus of the countries of the world, or the standards and determinations of the UN. In fact, even the UN exists under the constant threat of US sanctions if it opposes whatever “rules” the US decides are the current basis of global “order.” And all of those unilateral rules disproportionately benefit the US and its international business interests. So, the “rules based order” regime is as morally and ethically bankrupt as it is legally bankrupt.

The Chinese document and the three related speeches made in February have been widely read and heard across the non-western world, and is a part of what has buttressed the increasing pace at which many countries are turning away from the US and toward the BRICS+ alliance that is leading the development of bilateral and multilateral trade and settlement rails that don't rely on the dollar, the SWIFT system, or US-dominated international entities like the IMF and World Bank. Russia and China have also, each in their own way, made it clear over the last 12 months that they are not aligned with the World Economic Forum, and that, too, has encouraged developing countries.

Multipolarity is quickly becoming reality. It's a nascent movement, to be sure, but the rate at which the new system is being considered, embraced, and at least partially adopted has picked up speed since the beginning of the year, and looks to become more rapidly and broadly implemented as this year continues – and as other countries take stock of the inability of the combined US and NATO military to defeat Russia in Ukraine. It has become transparently obvious to everyone except the mal-informed populations living within the Trans-Atlantic nations that the US is no longer the dominant military power, and therefore need not be so thoroughly feared.

My point: it should be clear that the complaint you raise about the over-reach of the US Federal government into what were originally meant to be the affairs of sovereign US States is the same complaint China has leveled against that same government for reaching beyond its shores into the affairs of sovereign non-US States. The remedy will have to be similar. It will not be until our several states are prepared to operate cooperatively with one another, but independently of the bribes offered by DC to compliant states, and the threats and economic coercion leveled at any state government that demurs in the slightest on whatever DC determines to be essential matters, that we will restore our country to its promise.

No one is going to solve this problem from DC. That is to say, from the top, down. At both the international level and the domestic level, the problem is solved from the bottom, up. When States act in sovereign ways, prepared to work with each other apart from the tools, resources, and mechanisms controlled by DC, the power of DC will evaporate. Not without threats, and perhaps even violence here and there, but as long as the citizens of sovereign States remain determined, and their governments do not fold to enticement or threats, State sovereignty will return.

That applies to both domestic and global States. At the global level, the movement is gaining momentum. The whole world would appreciate it if we would get our domestic house in order. I would too, and it is why I am now interested in supporting politicians and leaders who have the same attitude toward DC that is emerging across the once-subjugated, now self-liberating globe.

Expand full comment
Jun 2, 2023Liked by John Klar

When do they come after my and everyone else’s garden because I could have purchased what I grow from interstate distributors of such items… produce, oats, rye, corn… grains I use and process for myself. The ruling based on could is vague, it is based on a future that did not happen. We need a ruling to reverse this because it is specious.

Expand full comment
Jun 2, 2023Liked by John Klar

Interstate commerce of food commodities is highly probable along our Connecticut River boundary with New Hampshire.Essex County has more interstate commerce with Coos County in NH, for instance. In my lifetime, international commerce between northern border towns and larger towns in Quebec also was essential. I think all the regulations have damaged the viability of the economies of these border communities and has contributed to the decline of these regions.

Expand full comment