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 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 3,021-3,022 next last
To: inquest
"Either you drove drunk, or you didn't."

That's my point. I wasn't drunk. I was at .08, and was TOLD I was drunk because of that arbitrary number. Two years ago when the number was .1, they told me I wasn't drunk at .08.

Now, if you're advocating that a person who possesses some pot be allowed to argue that he had no intent on crossing state lines, then why can't I argue my DWI? Why can't I prove that I am capable of driving safely at .08?

401 posted on 11/06/2005 1:52:10 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Torie
SCOTUS's, and well accepted by most, including just about all lawyers.

I am governed by the Constitution, not by "just about all lawyers."

most like it

"Most" of what group? The entire voting-age population? Prove it.

402 posted on 11/06/2005 1:53:26 PM 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 398 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Post 370.


403 posted on 11/06/2005 1:56:32 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
On this specific issue, I don't see anything inconsistent with Scalia's judgement as it relates to original intent.

We have accepted that Scalia's position is not consistent with Madison's. They can't both hold the originalist position. Again I ask, whose position is consistent with a Federal government of limited and defined powers, Scalia or Madison?

Lets say in the early days of America, the Founders were faced with a national drug abuse problem. Remember, human beings are prone to habitual behavioral patterns, with drugs being a totally destructive habit. What would the Founders have done to address this issue?

I think they would have left it up to each State. If I'm not mistaken, alcoholism was at least as widespread in the Founders' time as it is currently. (And alcohol use and abuse has always dwarfed the use/abuse of cocaine and opiates.)

Various State and local governments dealt with the problem in different ways, but it was not until the Progressive Era that a push for national prohibition on alcohol gained steam.

As to narcotics, the post Civil War era saw a big rise in addiction secondary to addicted soldiers and veterans. Yet, from 1880 to 1900 the rate of addiction fell significantly, while still remaining legal. From the USDOJ:

_______________________________

"In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S [50,000,000 census in 1880 =0.8% addiction rate- ken h]. That is twice as many per capita as there are today."

"By 1900, about one American in 200 [=0.5%] was either a cocaine or opium addict." [end excerpt]

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

______________________________________

My calculations show that opiate addiction dropped from 0.8% in 1880 to at least 0.5% in 1900; at least a 37.5% reduction. If you toss out cocaine addicts included in the 1900 figure, the drop would be even greater.

At the end of the 20th Century:

"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."

--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm

Using year 2000 figures from the USDOJ, and a population of 285,000,000, the rate of addiction to either cocaine or heroin is about 1.5%, or triple the rate in 1900.

404 posted on 11/06/2005 1:58:47 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"as Madison said, "few and defined"

Oh, they may indeed be "few and defined", but I don't see how it makes each one restrictive. "To regulate commerce" is very expansive. "Regulate" has been expanded, "commerce" has been expanded -- hell, the definition to include navigation as commerce was added when the ink was still wet on the constitution.

405 posted on 11/06/2005 2:01:29 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Torie
If the regulation does not reasonably affect interstate commerce, and is a matter historically of state concern, then no.

Those are the only cases that don't meet the "necessary and proper" test?! A "reasonable effect" makes regulation "necessary"?!? You stand words on their head to justify big federal government.

406 posted on 11/06/2005 2:01:54 PM 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 370 | View Replies]

To: Zon
"Ansliner's failed integrity was major cause of marijuana prohibition."

What, back in 1937? What in the world does that have to do with today's laws?

407 posted on 11/06/2005 2:08:33 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

I didn't say you would like it.


408 posted on 11/06/2005 2:08:58 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: inquest; Torie
"Great, so now all you have to do is find the section in the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate things that indirectly affect interstate commerce."

Ooh, ooh! I know! Call on me! I know!

409 posted on 11/06/2005 2:11:03 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Nobody who values the Founders' vision of a free people with a limited government will like it. Do you consider yourself an American conservative? If so, why?
410 posted on 11/06/2005 2:13:20 PM 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 408 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Paging RP. Of course, SCOTUS interred the direct versus indirect arid distinction ages ago. To draw such a distinction creates an unworkable test, that would collapse under its own weight.


411 posted on 11/06/2005 2:14:07 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"That didn't come from the commerce clause"

The poster didn't say no commerce clause authority, did he? He said they had no such authority.

I said they did.

412 posted on 11/06/2005 2:16:00 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
I consider myself a neocon Rino, and I was born in America. I hope that helps. I don't play the capture the conservative moniker game. I don't care. Try that game with somebody who does.
413 posted on 11/06/2005 2:16:00 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Constitution: Do you think the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause to include regulation and prohibition of drugs and firearms is a proper use of that clause?
No
84.9% 

Undecided/Pass
7.9% 

Yes
7.3% 
414 posted on 11/06/2005 2:18:10 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
That a picture of your bedroom?

It's a picure of some the cache of drugs found at the site of the mass murder by Jims Jones, the druggie.

Make ya proud?

415 posted on 11/06/2005 2:20:07 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"Where? I don't see it."

Keep looking ....


416 posted on 11/06/2005 2:23:07 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
It's in the U.S. Constitution. Better?

Not until you make your case with the language thereof.

417 posted on 11/06/2005 2:23:47 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Those poor buggers in Jamestown could have been drowned like kittens

You could argue that they might have been killed by meteors too. But they were forcibly poisoned by a deranged drug abuser.

418 posted on 11/06/2005 2:26:31 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Either you drove drunk, or you didn't."

That's my point. I wasn't drunk. I was at .08, and was TOLD I was drunk because of that arbitrary number.

OK, either you drove at .08 or above, or you didn't. Better?

Now, if you're advocating that a person who possesses some pot be allowed to argue that he had no intent on crossing state lines, then why can't I argue my DWI?

What's he being prosecuted for? Intent to cross state lines with his pot? Then, I'd think that should be a pretty sound defense, on the face of it. When it comes to DWI, either you're in violation, or you're not. How are you drawing "intent" into that equation?

419 posted on 11/06/2005 2:27:31 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Oh, they may indeed be "few and defined", but I don't see how it makes each one restrictive.

The whole idea of the phrase "few and defined" is to suggest restriction. We're once again at the point where I have to explain to you things that should be obvious to any native speaker of English.

420 posted on 11/06/2005 2:29:36 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 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