Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Free Republic ^ | 11-3-05

Posted on 11/03/2005 2:24:08 PM PST by inquest

There's a new poll up on the side. Do you think the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution authorizes federal laws against narcotics and firearms? Now lest everyone forget, this isn't asking whether you personally agree with such laws. It's about whether your honest reading of the Constitution can justify them.

While you're thinking it over, it might help to reflect on what James Madison had to say about federal power over interstate commerce:

Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
I'll be looking forward to your comments.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: alito; banglist; commerce; commerceclause; frpoll; herecomesmrleroy; interstate; interstatecommerce; madison; no; scotus; thatmrleroytoyou; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 3,021-3,022 next last
To: inquest
Unfortunately, Madison being unavailable today, we cannot demand that he answer our queries in a certain formula. We have to take what we have from him and do our best with that.
121 posted on 11/05/2005 10:31:23 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Roe v Wade is viewed as a bad decision by most conservatives and even some high profile liberals. [...] Then you take a legal run at it and we'll see how far you get.

I love when big-government "conservatives" undercut their own arguments. Thanks for the laugh!

I understand, you libertarians are easily amused. (Who said I'm a libertarian?)

Only big-government "conservatives" are unamused when big-government "conservatives" undercut their own arguments.

122 posted on 11/05/2005 10:32:42 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Perhaps not, but it establishes my interpretation of the term "several states" as correct.


123 posted on 11/05/2005 10:32:48 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham; inquest
If someone says, "If taken literally, this clause would mean such-and-such. YET...", most people would understand the "yet" to indicate that it's probably not to be taken literally.

If Madison wanted to say that the same extent belonged to both, he wouldn't have bothered with the "if taken literally" disclaimer. He would have simply said, "Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent belongs to it."

Unfortunately, Madison being unavailable today, we cannot demand that he answer our queries in a certain formula. We have to take what we have from him and do our best with that.

And inquest has done far better than you.

124 posted on 11/05/2005 10:34:59 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Which in no way supports the claim that regulating commerce "among the several states" includes uniform regulation of commerce within states.

Perhaps not,

Clearly not.

but it establishes my interpretation of the term "several states" as correct.

Which has no apparent relevance apart from the unsupported claim.

125 posted on 11/05/2005 10:37:17 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Take a look at the "necessary and proper" clause. Where the Framers granted authority to the federal government, they meant for that authority to be effective.

Where the Framers granted authority, and where they did not is the question. I don't think anyone has proposed that the Framers intened for federal authority they granted to be ineffective, or they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

126 posted on 11/05/2005 10:38:02 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: inquest; Rockingham
Think of the phrase "jointly and severally liable". Do you know what the "severally" means in that phrase? It means separate from one another. So "commerce among the several states" means among the states considered as seprate entities from each other. In other words, interstate commerce.

In the context of the Constitution, the word "several" has absolutely nothing to do with quantity - either directly, indirectly, or tangentially.

Paging Rockingham ....

127 posted on 11/05/2005 10:38:57 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

What I should have said was, you libertarians are easily amused and bemused.


128 posted on 11/05/2005 10:39:06 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Rockingham
I don't think anyone has proposed that the Framers intened for federal authority they granted to be ineffective, or they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

But they may very well have granted limited authority understanding that it wouldn't necessarily be effective in EVERY case ... so the argument that federal interstate regulation of drugs is ineffective without federal intrastate regulation of drugs in no way establishes the constitutionality of the latter.

129 posted on 11/05/2005 10:42:17 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
What I should have said was

What you should have done was quit while you were behind. Your post stands as self-refuted.

130 posted on 11/05/2005 10:43:19 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Who said I'm a libertarian?
131 posted on 11/05/2005 10:43:59 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: airborn503
In my view, the Second Amendment forbids federal or state prohibition of supposed "assault weapons" to most individuals.

Congressional and state legislative findings are entitled to deference, not blind acceptance. There is an elaborate and little recognized line of analysis by which federal and state courts assess such findings. In a sense, the process requires fact-finding by legislative bodies, with the courts then able to grade the results. Sometimes, the enactment at issue fails.
132 posted on 11/05/2005 10:44:14 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Still confused, I see. Carry on, mister libertarian.


133 posted on 11/05/2005 10:46:05 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

You prefer libertine to libertarian. Okay.


134 posted on 11/05/2005 10:47:48 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Still confused

Yes, you are ... shame about that.

135 posted on 11/05/2005 10:51:35 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
But they may very well have granted limited authority understanding that it wouldn't necessarily be effective in EVERY case ... so the argument that federal interstate regulation of drugs is ineffective without federal intrastate regulation of drugs in no way establishes the constitutionality of the latter.

Read Madison's letter again. "Regulating drugs" seems to be more a "positive purpose of the general government" than an injustice among the states. In the context of that letter there seem to be more fundamental questions than what is or isn't interstate.

136 posted on 11/05/2005 10:52:44 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You prefer libertine to libertarian.

I prefer that you address my arguments rather than slapping labels on me ... particularly labels whose applicability you can't support.

137 posted on 11/05/2005 10:52:59 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
In the context of that letter there seem to be more fundamental questions than what is or isn't interstate.

I agree ... but I'm for the time being confining myself to the narrower question.

138 posted on 11/05/2005 10:54:23 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
>>>>I prefer that you address my arguments ...

As soon as you make a substantive argument that is worth responding to, I'll consider a rebuttal.

>>>> ... rather than slapping labels on me ... particularly labels whose applicability you can't support.

That's a two way street, bucko. If you don't like labels, don't label others. Btw, you want respect, then earn it. So far the only thing you've earned is ridicule.

139 posted on 11/05/2005 11:02:49 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
I agree ... but I'm for the time being confining myself to the narrower question.

I like getting the fundamental questions addressed first, before getting into details than may not even be relevant depending on what the answers to those questions are.

140 posted on 11/05/2005 11:05:13 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 3,021-3,022 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson