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.
So then your "independently" claim was false.
Look, it's up to you to provide the evidence of whatever it is you're talking about. And so far, you're failing pretty badly.
It works against your position. And I did explain how. I'm not going to keep repeating myself just because you like to act obtuse.
Non sequitur. On stertoids this time.
Sub silentio.
--- As we see, Davis 'boldly' admits that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to prepare for conflict, for war..
For war with foreign nations, or indian tribes.. --Not for 'war' against the several States or US citizens.
Mojave's devastatingly comic comment in rebuttal:
" -- Nope. -- "
Or for non-conflict, for peace. Is claiming that commerce powers are actually war powers your absurdity du jour?
Or for non-conflict, for peace.
??? - Of course Congress can regulate among the States "for peace"..
That's the point; Congress does not have the power to regulate among the several States as an adversary..
It is ludicrous to believe that the government of the United States is empowered by the Constitution to wage a prohibitive commerce 'war' on its own States or its own citizens.
Is claiming that commerce powers are actually war powers your absurdity du jour?
Your amusingly juvenile proclivity for asking absurd leading questions is noted once again kiddo.
Will you ever grow up?
The "silent" sounds of Mojave losing the argument once again.
To an imaginary argument no less.
Rebut a post that makes no point?
And the rest?
With a federally issued Letter of Marque.
Surely they had cannons. Where were they kept?
Well, it seems these guys kept 19 of their privately owned cannons on board their privately owned warship.
publiusF27
And the rest?
They kept them wherever they wanted, of course.
-- It's still perfectly legal to 'keep' a cannon.. Most of mine are in the garage..
You mean the warship, complete with cannons and crew, sprang into existence when Madison signed that letter? Or maybe they had it before he signed the letter...
You mean that machine guns, complete with barrels and triggers, spring into existence when the federal firearms permit is issued?
But not a bong and a lid..
You mean the warship, complete with cannons and crew, sprang into existence when Madison signed that letter?
Mojave, - inanely:
You mean that machine guns, complete with barrels and triggers, spring into existence when the federal firearms permit is issued?
No virgina, santa does not make guns; - people do, -- and they have a right to do so independent of presidential/congressional approvals.
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.