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.
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"
[the tribes were our adversaries]
and when all trade with Europe was prohibited (see Jefferson's Embargo, 1807) under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations.
'Regulating commerce' with adversaries/enemies can include prohibiting trade with them.
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".
I'm sure Madison would have "said something" if he intended to give Congress the power to prohibit trade "among the several states"; -- and I'm sure the states representatives would have rode him out of town on a rail for suggesting such a stupid idea.
The US Congress & government has no power to prohibit trade between the States of the Union. -- They only have the power to reasonably regulate.
tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.
robertpausen would have us believe that "to regulate" can not be used to differentiate when we trade with friends, -- and potential or real enemies.
Bobby has an agenda, -- to empower governments at all levels with the ability to prohibit anything, for any reason.
Tacticalogic,
Sorry for the delay in response, I took my family camping.
You have identified me as a believer in the existence of a Federal government. I concur. I don't think a loose confederation would serve us well. This issue was settled twice with History on the side of a stronger Federal government than you would like. Doesn't mean specifically that you are wrong, but you are going to need a stronger argument than the WOD.
Just for clarification I also don't like the pure libertarian view of privatized police, fire/rescue, etc.
Now, as I said, I think the Federal government has too big of a roll in the collective governace of this country. I base that both on Constitutional grounds and on practical grounds (I don't think its working out so good).
Before charging headlong down the path of federal excommunication, you need to give a little thought to the devil you don't know. One of the primary reasons the federal government was able to so easily enlarge its reach, was because there was so much corruption, abuse of power, and inneffectiveness in local governments. There is absolutely no reason to think that the states would "legalize" drugs, some might, most wouldn't. Some might return to a prohibition on alcohol and create one on tobacco. Without federal oversight, state border checkpoints might likely become common, to check for prohibited items. A small town sheriff in partner with the local magistrate can be extremely powerful, "How much money you got boy?" New Orleans ring a bell? I've had several friends robbed at gun point in NO, by the police.
So you can make your Constitutional arguments for restricting the Federal government to its size of 1786, and I'll agree with some of it. But its naive to think that you are going to have an easier time correcting the abuses of state government than the federal government. In fact, it was the national spotlight that served to clean up a lot of local corruption.
Out of curiosity, how do you propose to legalize drugs? Are you suggesting that the federal government force the states to legalize?
Before you throw out the bath water, determine how you are going to deal with the baby.
RP would have us believe there is no difference between regulating commerce "among the several states" and "with foreign nations", that the relationship between the federal government and States is no different than it's relationship with foreign governments.