You should learn to provide full context of quotes and actually provide the correct references to the US Constitution in your debates. In other words, do a bit more research before you quote texts erroneously. All that does is discredit your intellect and credibility. Here, I will provide the corrections for you.
You are wrong on several fronts.
1) Here is the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. It does NOT contain the Commerce Clause.
The 10th Amendment is meant to limit the power of the Federal Government over the states and the people. I am NOT advocating the Federal Government get involved in this issue. In fact, I clearly state that this is a States issue. If anything, you should quote State Constitutions and case law to prove you points. Therefore, your reference is completely irrelevant.
2) The Commerce Clause is in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It states:
The Commerce Clause deals with Commerce across borders. Real Estate is within a single state. Federal law has nothing to do with laws regulating Intrastate Commerce. You should learn a bit more about the US Constitution before your make inappropriate references to it to prove your points.
3. Here is the full context of the quote you made. Notice that this references that the 10th amendment limits the US Congress from compelling States or Individuals to purchase products. It is expressly putting a limit on the Commerce Clause of the US Congress to regulate inter state commerce. It does NOT in any way shape or form limit the States rights to compel a purchase. In fact, there are plenty of State Mandates that are constitutional like Automobile insurance:
YOU ARE HEREBY PWNED.
Not.
The facts are that even Government - State, Federal, Local - CANNOT force anyone to accept something they do not want. Even taxes are only allowed because you have representatives that must approve them. Insurance is voluntary. Yes, if if want to drive you must have it but driving is a privilege not a right. Property RIGHTS are just that - a RIGHT. The Governments cannot step on them . If they could you'd find an awful lot of lets say undesirable properties in our many inner-cities that the Government & other individuals & Corporations do not wish to own suddenly forced on unwilling parties. It's a MUCH bigger problem than poor value timeshare weeks. But no one is proposing that each City or County resident be forced to take one, pay to operate maintain and pay taxes on it because it can't be sold. Exactly the same concept that forcing an Association to take unwanted deeds would mean.
Can't happen - won't happen and neither will any bogus attempt to mandate that you or I must, by edict, accept a property or contract that someone else decides they no longer want.
Can't happen legally and if tried it will be shot down in every Court in the land. Look for some other crusade if that is what you think the"answer" is.
Yet another quote regarding the importance of the very rights we are discussing:
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman] As Walter B. Mead points out in his book
The United States Constitution, the Framers were favorably disposed to history’s great philosophers who held that “concerns for freedom could not be separated from concerns for property” and that the Framers knew “inadequately secured property rights could render vulnerable even the fundamental liberties of speech, press, and meaningful political participation.” Or, as the Framers themselves said,
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams)
Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty. (John Adams)
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison)
Most startling of all, perhaps, was Forrest McDonald’s observation in his book
Novus Ordo Seclorum that property rights were so important to the Framers that all but 4 of the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention placed their protection behind only liberty itself as the sacred charge of government. And of the four who disagreed on this point, three of them differed not because they valued property rights
less than their fellows but because they actually “put [their] protection
ahead of liberty as the main object of society.”
[/FONT]
