[tacticalogic]

As for the current Supreme Court case, if the court holds for the government, it will come close to a reversal of Lopez and Morrison.

The government's lawywers are arguing that there cannot be an "as applied challenge" to Commerce Clause legislation. IOW - they're arguing that there is no such thing as a misapplication of the Commerce Clause. If that argument prevails, it will not "come close" to a reversal of Lopez and Morrison, it will dictate it.

[BCrago66]

Wow. I'm going to read the government's brief. Here's are the briefs, for anyone else interested who hasn't already read them.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov04.html#ashcroft

[robertpaulsen]

If you're not sure of something, tacticalogic, look it up. That's what I did.

"There’s a conflict between “facial” challenges and “as-applied” challenges that comes up in each case. The normal rule is that you start with an “as-applied” challenge. That means that there a particular person in court who says: “This law is unconstitutional as applied to me.” It could be a civil or criminal defendant."

[jayef]

bingo . . . don't expect the statists to understand this though.

drugs r bad . . . mmmkay!!!

that's all i know and that's all you need to know.