FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?

Free Republic ^ | 11-3-05

[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.

[Paige]

I asked a question and you gave me the run around. Until you give me a precise answer, then I have no other alternative than to not waste my time discussing this issue with you. Thanks! :)

[Paige]

Acted in the best interest of the American People? Are you saying the "Eminent Domain" ruling was in the best interest of the American people? Plus, questionable rulings on Church and state, etc? This is absolutely astonishing and certainly not accurate!

[robertpaulsen]

"There's another relatively old principle which is that if you're going to convict someone for intent to do such-and-such a thing, you should have to prove to the jury that his actions actually did betray such an intent."

Only at the federal level, of course. That is what you said in your post #216, correct?

[Reagan Man]

So Scalia's position is contrary to the opinions of other American jurists. Okay. It doesn't make Scalia's interpretation wrong, in my opinion.

[inquest]

Only at the federal level, of course. That is what you said in your post #216, correct?

What I said at #216 is that federal powers are few and defnined, and state powers numerous and indefinite. But the basic principle that a conviction of intent to do something should be based on some pretty strong evidence of such intent, is applicable at all levels.

[RightWhale]

do you think the Supreme Court has a Constitutional Right to legislate from the bench?

It's been that way since the beginning. There has always been some opinion that the unelected judges have too much power to legislate. The states have successfully rebelled against USSC decisions, usually western states such as Kentucky. An example is the law of pre-emption, which was eventually upheld by Congress over the USSC.

[Reagan Man]

I never said the Congress and the SCOTUS have acted in the best interests of the American people, on all issues. You need to stay focused on the specific case at issue. In the case of CSA of 1970 and the SCOTUS`s decision in Touby v USA, upholding the CSA, our government did its job. If you want to dissent from that reality, fine. Its still a free country.

[Paige]

So it is Constitutional?

[Paige]

I am focused. If you think for one moment SCOTUS has had the American People's best interest at heart and followed Article VI of the Constitution you are sadly mistaken.

[robertpaulsen]

"I made note of Anslinger's hypocrisy."

I see. So you don't actually believe what he said. Fine.

"While it's just a movie, I suspect you like it's application of propaganda."

I've never seen it, so I wouldn't know what you're talking about.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I am focused.

I disagree.

>>>> Are you saying the "Eminent Domain" ruling was in the best interest of the American people? Plus, questionable rulings on Church and state, etc?

[Paige]

These are rulings of SCOTUS since the 1960s. Shall I pull them up for you?

[RightWhale]

It appears so. It certainly did not create the Montesquieu division of powers that supposedly is the basis of the system. There is check and balance, but it is not simple and direct. It might take the states to get involved, as, for example, 2nd Amendment issues, abortion, and property rights since Kelo, or the people themselves, as in the settling of the West from Kentucky to California. The FedGov is not self-sufficient in that respect.

[Paige]

In The Heart of Atlanta case they linked flour and transported food to the Hotel from others states to give the rights to the Federal government to intervene in an alleged discrimination case. If they can dig this deep and rule on this particular case using the Interstate Commerce clause then I guess they think they have every right to go after fire arms or whatever they so desire. Furthermore, many Conservatives have grave concerns with the Patriot Act because it is believed the Patriot act gives the Federal Government the power to go even further.

[Zon]

Hypocrisy, as you of all people know, is a tell tale sign of failed integrity.

[Reagan Man]

Geez. Do whatever you like. Be as unfocused as you wanna be. LOL The issue under discussion is about whether or no the Congress and the SCOTUS acted properly when it came to illicit drugs and the commerce clause. If you want to expand the discussion to include wrong decisions on eminent domain and the issue of church and state, have at it. You'll probably find we're in agreement.

[Paige]

There is "Checks and Balances" within the Government itself. In Jefferson's "Theory of Nullification," Jefferson and Madison believed the States should have the rights to stop the Federal government from getting out of Control since the States created the Federal Government.
Now we have a huge overbearing government and the States continuously lose rights daily. The States are at the mercy of the Federal Government. So where do the People actually stand in all of this when it comes to the rulings on the Interstate Commerce Clause and other ruling handed down by the Federal Courts and SCOTUS? What is sad, this is a long ways from what John Locke wrote about when it came to Social Contract and the will of the People.

[Paige]

So you think it is ok for the Federal Government to Supercede the Constitution and State Rights by using the Interestate Commerce Clause?

[robertpaulsen]

"No, but he tried to get out from under the interstate commerce because it was not for interstate sale.

Truth be told, he tried to scam the system.

He could have sold less on the open market and kept that amount for his own use with no penalty. He could have produced more and stored it. He could have paid the penalty. He chose d.) none of the above.

He (and a million other farmers) would have affected interstate commerce because by producing more for themselves they would have purchased less on the open market. Surely that's obvious.

But you think there was a loophole in the law, and that means it's fair game to exploit it? Geez, one wonders why we have so many laws today.