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.
What remedy is there if a state court refuses to dismiss an anti-gun lawsuit?
The same appellate and extraordinary writ remedies as are generally available in that court system when judges do not follow the law. In the end, someone, somewhere will challenge the law and it is likely to end up in the federal courts.
To return to the main issue as it involves guns, take a look at my post #239 above.
When the poll was first posted, I expected the "yes" votes to gain a solid majority. My guess was that "No" would be exceedingly lucky to get 30%; and that only a couple of hundred FReepers would even be interested enough to vote. Imagine how SHOCKED and STUNNED I was when I clicked here and these numbers appeared!
Member Opinion
No 85.4% 1,074
Undecided/Pass 9.6% 121
Yes 5.0% 63
Total 100.0% 1,258
I've evaded nothing for the simple fact, there's been nothing to evade. For your edification, let's review.
This all started with you asking me, "What's your point?" This was in reference to my statement that the SCOTUS decision in Touby v USA was a unanimous decision that upheld the CSA of 1970. You objected to this SCOTUS decision and said it was "A dubious claim at best since plaintiffs didn't challenge the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole." I see nothing dubious about a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. I suggested to you, if you thought it was a dubious decision, then you should mount a legal challenge and we'll see how far you get.
>>>>You can pretend that this is not "a substantive argument that is worth responding to" ....
And your substantive argument is? You believe that just because the SCOTUS upheld Touby v USA, doesn't mean it wasn't wrongly decided. By linking the decision in Touby v USA with the decision made in Roe v Wade, which by the way was not a unanimous decision, you're trying to show a pattern of bad SCOTUS decisions. There is a distinct difference between Touby v USA and Roe v Wade. As I said, many people from across the political spectrum view Roe v Wade as a bad decision and for good reason. It was a bad decision. Abortion on demand is an abomination.
Touby v USA was a justified decision by the SCOTUS and the CSA of 1970 was a proper use of the Commerce Clause by Congress. It has been upheld many times. Most recently in the SCOTUS case, AG Gonzales v RAICH, of June.6, 2005. In which Justice Scalia wrote a great opinion concurring in the judgment of the majority. Sometimes the SCOTUS gets it right, sometimes the Congress gets it right.
Now, if you have something substantive to add to the debate, lets hear it. Otherwise, this is nothing more the a difference of opinion. If you weren't such a smart aleck in your post at RE:#88, we could have agreed to disagree and left it at that.
I was stunned that so many FReepers answered with a no. LOL Guess there are a lot more "libertarian" minded FReepers when it comes to the drug issue then I ever realized. Either that or the vast majority of FReepers don't know the Commerce Clause from a hole in the ground.
As you know the weed grows wild in every state, therefore there is no interstate commerce involved. The governments hands are tied.-- government narcotics official, Refer Madness.
http://www.archive.org/stream/reefer_madness1938/reefer_madness1938_256kb.mp4
I love it: Reefer Madness, Know your rights, and Ken H all ahve the same view of the commerce clause power!
"In 1930, Anslinger was appointed to the newly-created FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) as its first Commissioner." Harry J. Anslinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He new there was no grounds to prohibit marijuana based on the interstate commerce clause.
We may be in good company.
Alito on Machine Guns and Interstate Commerce
In other words, the majority argues in effect that the private, purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on the interstate machine gun market.
This theory, if accepted, would go far toward converting Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce into "a plenary police power." Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1633. If there is any sort of interstate market for a commodity--and I think that it is safe to assume that there is some sort of interstate market for practically everything--then the purely intrastate possession of that item will have an effect on that market, and outlawing private possession of the item will presumably have a substantial effect.
Consequently, the majority's theory leads to the conclusion that Congress may ban the purely intrastate possession of just about anything.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512977/posts (with link to full text of Alito's dissent)
Perhaps he'll acquire the nickname Thomasito.
Well, I must have missed the part about, "Comgress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the states most of the time".
Go back to sleep, lightweight Whack-A-Mole.
He didn't know that. What he knew was that tax stamps worked for firearms (ie., the recently enacted National Firearms Act of 1934), and that they would work for marijuana.
In 1920, Congress enacted the Dangerous Drug Act which made over-the-counter purchase of heroin, opium, morphine and other drugs illegal and deemed that their distribution be federally regulated.
They could have done the same with marijuana.
Congress declared one -- it was not found by the court.
"And remind me which case is Morrison?"
United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000) concerned the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA).
"In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state."
Nor the right to privacy, nude dancing, sodomy, abortion, flag burning, "under God", "Miranda" rights, no-knock entry, asset forfeiture, an individual right to bear arms, libel/slander, and a whole slew of things.
So?
Are not "we the people" here now discussing certain of those combinations with the intent of trying to determine whether they threaten to subvert the Constitution? "We the People" is not "we the people", although I frequently see arguments that seem based on that premise.
Some of these things are highly specious "interpretations", others are necessary consequences of the text. Since you've provided nothing from either the text or original intent to defend your position on "substantial effects", it pretty much would have to fall into the former category.
You mean "until the Districts are aligned in a way that we favor".
We have the power today. The people, however, choose not to exercise that power, and that frustrates you. So you turn to some bastardized reading of the U.S. Constitution and look for an activist court to do your bidding.
Hey, fine ... the liberals do it, why can't we? Right?
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.