Posted on 02/20/2015 11:54:50 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Exactly.
Negative. The right wants ALL KINDS of big gov, as long as it's THEIR big gov. Government that governs best governs least. It's evidenced every single day!
Does requiring me to enter enter into a contract with a health insurance agency constitute slavery?
If you are going to use that logic— that which is harmful to people—we should be banning alcohol. Colorado has already made their decision. The fed should stay out of their business.
What's to see? You want to change existing society to something you think is more to your liking.
That has "Liberal" written all over it.
Ha! We see eye to eye on this.
So you mean states can't just make up their own laws which are violations of Federal law?
Well that's what *I* thought too!
You don't own that land or the view, Ms. Reilly - stop trying to use the courts to steal.
The consequences wreck the state.
Given the reverence of the Founders for the document, I'm sure Adams was including people who piss all over the Constitution.
I agree, so you people need to quit pissing on the constitution by trying to argue that the Tenth Amendment encompasses drug usage and perverse sex.
No it doesn't.
So you mean states can't just make up their own laws which are violations of Federal law?
Where did I say that? States can't violate restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, which includes "no slavery" but not "no pot."
Nope. Anything coming from outside the U.S. clearly falls under "commerce with foreign nations" and is within the intended scope of the Commerce Clause.
OTOH, if someone wants try to mine uranium in Colorado, enrich it in Colorado, and manufacture a nuclear bomb in Colorado, using equipment and parts all manufactured and purchased solely within Colorado, then it would not fall within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause (although trying to detonate it clearly would, unless it is a really small nuclear bomb with no fallout).
Of course, even if the Commerce Clause does not apply, manufacturing, selling or purchasing any sort of weapon of mass destruction (even if entirely intrastate) would still fall within Congress' authority under several of the other enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, including the power to "provide for the common defense" of the United States.
The point is that the Commerce Clause is not Congress' only enumerated power and it should not be construed so broadly that the other enumerated powers are moot and the federal government has the power to regulate every transaction.
Government exists to serve fundamental needs, among them is enforcing necessary laws and protecting people from external and internal threats to their lives and safety.
Your pet pastime represents a threat to the lives of a significant portion of the populace, and is therefore within the mandate of necessary and justifiable government action.
Yes.
“”2: Washington has no legitimate intrastate authority over a plant.”
Or nuclear material. Or Biological material. Or Toxic Material.”
I would agree with all of those things, If a state wishes to control any domestic activity it must do so thou state & local laws not Federal edicts.
If your so conserned about nuclear menterials or Bioligical materials there is no reason in the world every state can’t craft its own set of laws on the subject.
I would wager many states would be a bit less unreasonably restrictive, and in any cases the really bad stuff that makes it thou the cracks will do so with or without Washington’s edicts.
Indeed do you know how Washington restricts the supply of fissionable materials? They buy it all up. Otherwise they have no control over the supply anywhere in the world, and the truth is they don’t really have fully control of it here in the US either.
The problem with building a nuke is obtaining a sufficient amount of the fissionable materials along with all the required skill sets and technology. Up until now at least that’s been difficult for even state funded actors to do.
So you want fedgov to dictate such issues if the state gets it wrong? Under what Clause?
If not fedgov, then who?
So you want fedgov to dictate such issues if the state gets it wrong? Under what Clause?
If not fedgov, then who?
If we are going to use *YOUR* logic, we shouldn't ban anything. I noticed you didn't answer the question. Can Colorado legalize Heroin and Meth?
But with pot, the slavery isn't put on the users so much as on those of us who have to pay for them to sit around all day drawing welfare instead of working.
I am firmly against slavery, and so we shouldn't let any drug addicts make us into slaves.
Grand Junction and Mesa County (Unincorporated areas) have done so as well. I hope that means they also don't get the tax revenues for the schools.
I don't think you can call it "commerce" when it is illegal.
OTOH, if someone wants try to mine uranium in Colorado, enrich it in Colorado, and manufacture a nuclear bomb in Colorado, using equipment and parts all manufactured and purchased solely within Colorado, then it would not fall within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause (although trying to detonate it clearly would, unless it is a really small nuclear bomb with no fallout).
How would detonating a nuclear bomb fall under the "Commerce Clause"? What part of it is "commerce"?
No, the authority for interdicting this sort of stuff is the Defense Clause.
Of course, even if the Commerce Clause does not apply, manufacturing, selling or purchasing any sort of weapon of mass destruction (even if entirely intrastate) would still fall within Congress' authority under several of the other enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, including the power to "provide for the common defense" of the United States.
Thank you. My point exactly.
The point is that the Commerce Clause is not Congress' only enumerated power and it should not be construed so broadly that the other enumerated powers are moot and the federal government has the power to regulate every transaction.
I agree. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted over broadly, but sufficient justification exists from other constitutionally delegated powers to allow the interdiction of dangerous substances which are deemed a threat to the nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.