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.
The U.S. Supreme Court did rule that there is a constitutional right to abortion - does that make it true?
True or not, their ruling makes abortion legal.
I think you do in fact understand the claims that Roe v Wade, or the Controlled Substances Act, are unconstitutional - that's what comes under the "true or not" you refer to.
It is true that people have "claimed" the CSA to be unconstitutional. People have also "claimed" that there is man-made global warming, too.
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.
Which is why I would prefer to stay on topic and limit the discussion to the legalization of marijuana at the state level.
You implied that it was nonsensical to call unconstitutional that which the Supremes have ruled constitutional, and that implication makes the subsequent exchange on-topic. If you can't take the heat don't open the door to the kitchen.
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?
Oklahoma law, for starters - and they've established probable cause to retrace their steps and determine what legal Colorado seller sold them the pot - which is possible because legal regulated sellers of any good keep the standard sorts of records (in addition to any pot-specific requirements of CO law).
I thought you might object to living in a police state.
LOL! The current state of affairs, with federal agents patrolling the interiors of all 50 states, is much more of a police state than federal agents patrolling the state borders of all 50 states (from which I doubt they're absent today).
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
There is no such exception in the text of the Constitution - that's a fabrication of the FDR courts and later.
on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating. Certainly you wouldn't exclude intrastate flights from FAA control?
I thought you would prefer to stay on topic. But since you ask, I believe I would so exclude.
Jefferson banned the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes without an 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.
Irrelevant. My point was that Congress did not need a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians.
I thought you would prefer to stay on topic. Your point was already shown to give no support to your claim of constitutionality for a statute banning alcohol - you're arguing in circles (irrelevant ones, to boot).