http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
this ?
How does that apply ? I don’t have the time to read all that
got to get to work .
Have you heard the adage “ going to pot “ ?
I do not want to see my nation go to pot . It has messed a lot of things up since first getting popularized as a drug long ago . It definitely causes Lib-progressive mindset , and that will be the death of our homeland eventually .
I live in a total hotbed of ganja lifestyle and I am surrounded with clueless nit-wits that all think they are as brilliant and enlightened as hell . They ALL voted for Obama , every damn one
Most sodomites and dykes are everyday dope smokers. If they could do some kind of survey to show who smokes the most dope it would show the degenerates are the biggest users. They do this to escape reality because they’re ashamed of their filthy lifestyle.
How does that apply ?
Because it permits Congress to override the Tenth Amendment and regulate matters that were originally meant for the states. It is how fedgov controls education, health care, the environment, welfare and intrastate marijuana prohibition. It is the heart of big government.
When you get back from work, I would be interested in hearing how you justify trashing the Tenth Amendment.
“this ?
How does that apply ?”
Ok, let me try to explain. There was no authorization in the Constitution, as it was written, for the Federal government to regulate drugs, alcohol, or anything along those lines. That’s why, when there was a push for alcohol prohibition, everyone knew that an amendment had to be passed to grant the government that authority.
This all changed with the Wickard decision, because the Supreme Court found a way to justify expanding the power of the Federal government to regulate almost anything. They claimed that this justification lay in the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution, which had previously only been interpreted as simply allowing the Feds to step in and mediate disputes between the states in matters of commerce.
The case involved a wheat farmer who disobeyed a federal limit on wheat production. The farmer claimed that the wheat was for his own personal use, so the federal government had no authority to regulate it, since it would never cross a state border. The Supreme Court decided that, since the mere production of wheat for personal use could reduce demand, and affect the market price of wheat in other states, that this was enough of a connection to interstate commerce to allow the feds to butt in and tell the farmer what he could grow on his own land, for his own use.
This has been expanded in the years since to justify drug prohibition and all sorts of other expansions of the Federal government, at the expense of the rights of the states and the people.