Gosh darn Illuminati!!!
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.
I agree. Between the Patriot Act and the activist interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Constitution has been suspended.
.
Gosh darn Illuminati!!!
The power to RCATSS was surrendered in I.8.3. to Congress. Marshall was clear that State power to regulate commerce was not derived from I.8.3.
"It is obvious, that the government of the Union, in the exercise of its express powers, that, for example, of regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the States, may use means that may also be employed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers; that, for example, of regulating commerce within the State.
~snip~
So, if a State, in passing laws on subjects acknowledged to be within its control, and with a view to those subjects, shall adopt a measure of the same character with one which Congress may adopt, it does not derive its authority from the particular power which has been granted, but from some other, which remains with the State, and may be executed by the same means. All experience shows, that the same measures, or measures scarcely distinguishable from each other, may flow from distinct powers; but this does not prove that the powers themselves are identical.
But if the federal government steps in to say, remove a tariff, they do so for the benefit (positive purposes) of the United States, not for the benefit of State A or State B.
That would not be a positive purpose. Removing a tariff by an act of Congress is a negative measure, ie, it removes an injustice. Such an exercise would be consistent with Madison's view.
"A" rather than "B" means "A" is the expected course. It does not preclude "B". You're saying that "B" is not allowed. That's wrong.
Madison used the past tense (was intended). Thus, ["A" was intended, rather than "B"] means ["A was the intent, and "B" was not.] Again, I have cited biblical translations and English grammar sources which say "rather than" means "and not" or "instead of". You have given no cites to counter them. Why have you not done so?
The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act imposed a tax on distribution of certain drugs, and imposed certain restrictions on those paying the tax.
In this manner, it operated similarly to the $200 machine gun tax imposed by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulated machineguns under the fig-leaf of purportedly being a revenue measure.
In neither case the the federal government assert an independent authority to impose restrictions on the items -- instead they disguised what they were doing under another heading
Hah! YOU didn't. Why should I waste my time?
It's in the U.S. Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8. A power in there somewhere.
You want references to the constitution, well, I guess that's exactly what you deserve. And from me, from now on, that's what you'll get.
Smartass.
Obviously. The right of society to enact laws to protect itself from dope doesn't mean an RA to you. Or most of its other strident promoters.
It's in the constitution.
LOL
That's their modus operandi.
And "expansion" of the Commerce Clause? Congress has been regulating and prohibiting under the Commerce Clause for almost 200 years. How does one expand the Commerce Clause? You can expand the number of things being regulated, sure.
Dumb question.
I never said that. I did say, "On this specific issue, I don't see anything inconsistent with Scalia's judgement as it relates to original intent." The use of the commerce clause to extend the prohibition of illicit drugs as defined in the CSA of 1970, is valid and legal according to SCOTUS.
Once again, we've come full circle.
>>>>I think they would have left it up to each State.
Glad to see you used the word "think". Frankly, I don't know what the Founders would have done in the case of a national drug control abuse problem. And neither does anyone else.
Whatever. It's certainly no problem for me if you make no attempt to back up your position.
Under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, the federal government arrested people and threw them in jail for selling drugs. That's pretty f^&@ing assertive, if you ask me.
Zon: 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 414
7.3%
You had this response:
A "proper" use? What is that? Morally? Constitutionally? Legitimately?
And "expansion" of the Commerce Clause? Congress has been regulating and prohibiting under the Commerce Clause for almost 200 years. How does one expand the Commerce Clause? You can expand the number of things being regulated, sure.
Dumb question.
Have you stopped taking your meds?
You should be able to argue it. As to whether a jury accepts your arguments as to why you should not be prosecuted, that would be up to them.
Legalized dope.
I never said that. I did say, "On this specific issue, I don't see anything inconsistent with Scalia's judgement as it relates to original intent."
______________________________________
Maybe I misinterpreted this exchange:
Ken H: Scalia's position is contrary to Madison, Marshall, and Alito.
Reagan Man: So Scalia's position is contrary to the opinions of other American jurists.
___________________________________
Do you think these views of Madison and Scalia are compatible?--
SCALIA: "And the category of "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce," Lopez, supra, at 559, is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."
MADISON (re the power to regulate commerce among the several States):
"...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: "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."
Lawyers in court are limitted to presenting facts and arguments a judge will deem (or the opposing attorney will accept) as "relevant". In the particular case I described, the necessary facts would probably be elicited by the prosecutor's witnesses (on cross-examination if nothing else): "Officer, when you picked up the defendant, where was his vehicle? [parked at XXX location] What was the defendant doing [sleeping]. Was there any sign that the defendant had fallen asleep while the vehicle was in motion [no]." But in many other cases where I would say a defense should be allowed to present such a case, they would not be.
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.