That's easy. Someone too cowardly and dishonest to admit being a leftist will refer to himself as a "Liberal" or "Progressive."
It is the government's burden to make its case as to why something is within its jurisidiction
Again, easily done:
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--
(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
I'm a Liberal because I adhere to the majority of Locke's doctrines.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate
Rubbish. In every single case the government has the burden to prove the source of its evidence is legitimate and that items deemed contraband are in fact within its jurisidiction. How would you like to be on trial and the government taking the attitude that "since it is impossible to tell what firearm committed the crime because someone edged off the grooves inside the barrel (thus totally f@#$ing the ballistics test) we must assume that we no longer need the murder weapon to prove Roscoe's guilt as any grooveless gun of the same calibre would suffice to be the murder weapon since we also think he used gloves to hide his fingerprints." You'd be pretty damn pissed if the judge said that the government wasn't burdened to actually prove its case against you, that you had to prove yours against the government. Congradulations, you've been advocating guilty-until-proven-innocent now for a while. If it is a crime locally, let the state take care of it. Oh that's right, you don't believe states should even exist.