Is the unconstitutionality of Roe v Wade - or Obamacare - also merely a "claim"?
Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled both constitutional, yes.
We'll have to agree to disagree - I maintain that part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was to compose a Constitution that could be understood by any well-read citizen, so we have no need to rely on lawyers, legal scholars, or even justices to tell us what is and is not in accord with the Constitution.
I'll also note, without claiming it proves anything, that many (I suspect most) FReepers would vigorously disagree with the claim that the unconstitutionality of Roe v Wade or Obamacare are merely "claims" on par with the claim that there is man-made global warming.
Patent nonsense - find a vehicle full of pot with CO plates and registered in CO being driven by a CO resident in a neighboring state and you have plenty of ways to identify the origin of that pot.
None that would hold up in court under your definition of the law. Unless the vehicle was observed crossing the state line, there is no crime.
Clearly wrong - while usually sufficient, eyewitness testimony to the moment of commission of a criminal act has never been necessary to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; many criiminal convictions have been obtained without such testimony.
Make that: no substantive attempt had been made before or since to control interstate traffic without instrastate control.
A substantive attempt. Which would mean federal agents patrolling the state borders of all 50 states. When they can't even protect our southern border.
Well, I suppose we could do it your way. I don't think you'd like it, though.
Not my way but the Constitution's way - why wouldn't I like that?
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
It seems they did think a statute was permissible - but in evaluating the correctness of this belief, one should keep in mind that your link goes on to say that Prohibition sprang from a Progessive mindset, which is one not known for its regard for constitutional limits on social engineering.
Your turn. Do you have any evidence that a constitutional amendment was required? I've looked and can't find any.
You need look no further than the Commerce Clause's pointed exclusion of intrastate commerce, and the Tenth Amendment.
No help for you there - regulating commerce with the Indian tribes is a federal power explicitly granted by Article I Section 8.
Yes. But the same clause gives the same power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states.
Strikingly absent is the power to regulate commerce within individual states.
Which is why I would prefer to stay on topic and limit the discussion to the legalization of marijuana at the state level.
"Clearly wrong - while usually sufficient, eyewitness testimony to the moment of commission of a criminal act has never been necessary to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt;"
Fine. So we have a car with Colorado plates parked in Oklahoma, with a trunk full of marijuana. What law, under your scenario, have they broken?
"Not my way but the Constitution's way - why wouldn't I like that?"
Well then, my bad. I thought you might object to living in a police state.
"You need look no further than the Commerce Clause's pointed exclusion of intrastate commerce, and the Tenth Amendment."
Intrastate commerce is excluded, unless it has an affect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating. Certainly you wouldn't exclude intrastate flights from FAA control?
"Strikingly absent is the power to regulate commerce within individual states."
Irrelevant. My point was that Congress did not need a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians.