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.
Personal attacks don't win arguments.
Assume, for purposes of argument, that the best and only prospect for the suppression of marijuana cultivation and commerce requires a comprehensive federal prohibition.
On such facts, would you grant that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause authorized a comprehensive federal prohibition against marijuana
I thought I made that clear: no. I believe that when the Constitution limits federal authority to interstate commerce ("among the several states") it means what it says.
Were we to have transparency and honesty, the 'system' wouldn't last a week.
Lies are the last element of a socialist regime to be abandoned. The lies will be clung to when all else is gone.
It's the Jonestown paradigm.
I made note of Anslinger's hypocrisy. While it's just a movie, I suspect you like it's application of propaganda.
Do you think Madison would view intrastate drug prohibition as being in accordance with the original intent of the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States?
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.
Madison in Federalist 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Did the U.S. Supreme Court categorize them this way, or is this simply your opinion?
"Since you've provided nothing from either the text or original intent to defend your position on "substantial effects"
What, legislating an intrastate activity (using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause) that has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating is not a necessary consequence of the text of the Commerce Clause? You're saying that if Congress is constitutionally regulating interstate airline traffic, each state should be allowed to regulate purely intrastate airline traffic -- setting air traffic routes, radio frequencies, landing patterns, etc., and that Congress has no authority over this activity?
To return to the main issue as it involves guns
So you concede the point on the meaning of 'several states'?
Lies are the last element of a socialist regime to be abandoned. The lies will be clung to when all else is gone.
We see that occurring in the CIA leak issue. The MSM, democrats, screeching celebrities and Wilson are analogous to a toddler with his hands covering his eyes exclaiming "you can't see me".
It's the Jonestown paradigm.
That is predicted and people will need anchors to reality to come through. These are known.
That a picture of your bedroom?
What kind of "drugs" are those all spread out. I recognize the anti-malaria quinine tabs, but can't figure out what that other stuff you're using is.
Fine. That's your opinion. I still think it was a badly worded question. After all, there was no visible drug problem in American society in the late 1700`s. The circumstances were drastically different in the second half of the 20th century, leading to the creation of a standard national drug strategy with 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."
No, I objected with those words to your mischaracterization of that decision as upholding the CSA, when all it really did was uphold the challenged section.
many people from across the political spectrum view Roe v Wade as a bad decision and for good reason.
Many people view the CSA as an unconstitutional law and for good reason: the Constitution gives the federal government no more than very narrow authority over intrastate transactions (as all pre-FDR courts that ruled on the issue recognized).
Well, I must have missed the part about, "Comgress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the states most of the time".
Yet another of your straw men; Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states all of the time, but has no guarantee that it will be effective all of the time, nor a blank-check grant of the powers needed to make it effective all of the time.
Anyone who wants to know can click the links I provide and see that you're wrong.
In other words, is the sole intent of the second amendment "arms for our own defence" or can arms be used for other purposes? If arms can be used for other purposes (eg., hunting), then please tell me the significance of "original intent" (other than historical curiosity).
Why are you refusing to answer this question?
Those poor buggers in Jamestown could have been drowned like kittens - would you then criminalize water?
Does it really matter what means of genocide a regime uses to liquidate its people?
Gas, drugs, bullets, machetes, curettes - all are effective.
But the real foundation of every totalitarian utopian scheme is the Lie - you know, like the one you believe!
Are you saying that he and the other farmers should be allowed to get the federally subsidized price for their wheat (which was 3X world market price) and still be allowed to grow all they wanted, thereby undermining the program?
Why not use ISC to edit newspapers, internet sites, ....
It's getting to be a habit.
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.