Replies

A snippet by James Madison that was written 43 years after the ratification is your PROOF? He states that interstate commerce was to be regulated to protect the importing from the non-importing. In the WOD, they are all importing, which falls to a different clause all together. But as long as we're digging up Madison quotes:

"The power to regulate trade is a compound technical phrase, to be expounded by the sense in which it has usually been taken, as shewn by the purpose to which it has usually been applied. To interpret it with a literal strictness, excluding whatever is not specified, would exclude even the retaliating and extorting power against the unequal policy of other nations, which is not specified, yet is admitted by all to be included...

Letter to W. C. Rives, January 10, 1829

Is a poisonous and ruinous product shipped in from a foreign power able to be regulated? No doubt you will now turn to asking why the local PCP lab selling to local kids is a federal issue. That is at least a good question, best answered by explaining why there should be no federal regulation of prescription drugs and the FDA should be disbanded. As you can't justify regulating antibiotics, but not PCP. Or perhaps you do want to justify that?

I am a firm believer that the Federal government is too involved in state matters, but the WOD would be my last choice as an example, and certainly the last issue I would want to tie my banner to. The only people that are going to get excited about it are crack heads. Lazy, shiftless, and brain numb aren't exactly the qualities you want in your staunch supporters.

I admire your push to roll back federalism. I highly recommend you choose a different horse.

I am a firm believer that the Federal government is too involved in state matters, but the WOD would be my last choice as an example, and certainly the last issue I would want to tie my banner to. The only people that are going to get excited about it are crack heads. Lazy, shiftless, and brain numb aren't exactly the qualities you want in your staunch supporters.
I admire your push to roll back federalism. I highly recommend you choose a different horse.

Everyone has their favorite piece of the federal pie. You're apparently not willing to give up yours, or at least get right with the Constitution by refusing to support it without an amendment.

James Madison was Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when alcohol sales to the Indians were prohibited under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes" and when all trade with Europe was prohibited (see Jefferson's Embargo, 1807) under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations.

Now, you would have thought that James Madison, the author of the Commerce Clause, would have said something if he believed that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit".

tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.