Once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, yes it is nonsensical. How is it otherwise?
Already answered: "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."
and that implication makes the subsequent exchange on-topic.
Not if the debate is about the Commerce Clause. Roe v Wade involved the right to privacy, and Obamacare was Congress' power to tax.
Your claim that "Once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, yes it is nonsensical [to call a ruling unconstitutional]" applies with equal force to the Commerce Clause, the right to privacy, and Congress' power to tax - so all are equally relevant to your claim.
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).
Who sold what to who? A car with Colorado plates is sitting in Arkansas with a trunkload of pot. Your law states that it's only illegal when marijuana crosses state lines.
Certainly there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. An investigation is legally warranted. But an arrest? I don't understand what law has been broken.
This is the first you've said about an arrest. The feds have grounds to get warrants for further investigation - and if they can't hold the pot pending the outcome of their investigation, Arkansas will have it in their evidence locker for the violation of Arkansas law.
sellers of any good keep the standard sorts of records
For illegal activity? I'm understandably reluctant to depend on good record-keeping by the smugglers to enforce our drug laws.
If you're going to distort my statement to construct a straw man, have at least the low animal cunning to not quote my full text a few lines previously: "legal regulated sellers of any good keep the standard sorts of records".
There is no such exception in the text of the Constitution
I believe you're the one making an exception. The text reads "among the several states", not "between the several states".
No help for you there - commerce within a state that affects another state is not commerce "among the several states."
We can go back to 1824 (in Gibbons v Ogden) where Founding Father and Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Congress could not regulate intrastate commerce that had no effect on other states.
No help for you there - that ruling doesn't imply that Congress CAN regulate intrastate commerce that DOES have an effect on other states. In fact, the reason for noting this nonexhaustive example of restriction on federal power was to illustrate that even this narrow example would be effectively nullified by Ogden's argument that the state of New York had "a concurrent power to regulate commerce": "To sustain the interference of the State, in a high concern of maritime commerce, the argument adopts a principle which acknowledges the right of Congress, over a vast scope of internal legislation, which no one has heretofore supposed to be within its powers. But this is not all; for it is admitted, that when Congress and the States have power to legislate over the same subject, the power of Congress, when exercised, controls or extinguishes the State power; and, therefore, the consequence would seem to follow, from the argument, that all State legislation, over such subjects as have been mentioned, is, at all times, liable to the superior power of Congress; a consequence, which no one would admit for a moment." (emphasis added)
You would exclude intrastate flights from FAA control? Wow. I guess a few mid-air collisions are the price we pay for freedom.
So it's federal regulation or a free-for-all? Your bootlicking is noted and mocked.
My point was that Congress could use the power of the Commerce Clause to ban alcohol, and that an amendment was not necessary. In support of my statement, I pointed out that Congress did use that power to ban -- by statute -- alcohol sales to the Indian tribes. That same Commerce Clause power can also be used "among the several sates" and "with foreign nations", since all are included under the power to regulate.
That doesn't support your statement, since the actions you cite are explcitly authorized by the Constitution, which a general alcohol ban is not.
Merry Christmas, offwhite!
Marbury v Madison assigned the final word to the U.S. Supreme Court. Someone has to make a decision as to what is and what is not constitutional.
You say it should be the citizens? How would that work?
"The feds have grounds to get warrants for further investigation"
They'd need probable cause for that. Which they don't have. You're simply proposing the use of harassment as a substitute for good law.
"legal regulated sellers of any good keep the standard sorts of records".
First, illegal sales would obviously be "off the books". Second, just how detailed are these "records" -- would you insist on the names and addresses of all the buyers so the feds could track the sales? Third, you're the one with the strawman, setting up "legally regulated sellers" as the only ones selling marijuana across state lines.
"that ruling doesn't imply that Congress CAN regulate intrastate commerce that DOES have an effect on other states"
Then there would have been no need to even mention it. But it was mentioned. Why?
Gibbons v Ogden was brought up simply because it was the earliest reference to "an effect on other states" that I could find. The Shreveport Rate Cases (1914 -- decades before FDR) was much more definitive:
"Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field."
"Your bootlicking is noted and mocked."
Now, now. Just because I pointed out the utter unthinking foolishness and inanity of your remark is no reason to start hurling insults.
"That doesn't support your statement, since the actions you cite are explcitly authorized by the Constitution, which a general alcohol ban is not."
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
Are you saying that Congress can regulate (ban) commerce (sales of alcohol) with the Indian tribes but not among the several states? Does "regulate" have different meanings, depending on the target?
I don't understand your point.