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.
I've read this case. "Carriers" refers to registered carriers of interstate commerce (in this case the railroad). What's being regulated is the carriers themselves and the rates they charge, not the objects of commerce that they carry.
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?
No, I say it is manifestly not "nonsensical" to call unconstitutional that which the Supremes have ruled constitutional, as you claim it is. What we do about unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings is another question.
The feds have grounds to get warrants for further investigation
They'd need probable cause for that. Which they don't have.
Sez you.
legal regulated sellers of any good keep the standard sorts of records.
just how detailed are these "records" -- would you insist on the names and addresses of all the buyers
I wouldn't "insist" nor have the feds insist on anything - records exist and can in many cases further an investigation.
you're the one with the strawman, setting up "legally regulated sellers" as the only ones selling marijuana across state lines.
No, the point is that illegal interstate sales occur now, so are irrelevant to the issue of legalizing intrastate sales.
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?
I answered that in the text you omitted:
'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)'
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
How are carriers relevant to the matter at hand/
Your bootlicking is noted and mocked.
Now, now. Just because I pointed out the utter unthinking foolishness and inanity of your remark
The utter unthinking foolishness and inanity is yours in implying that it's federal regulation or a free-for-all.
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?
I'm saying that neither enumerated power implies a power to ban alcohol within states.