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.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>So whose intent was Scalia referring to when he says the Constitution should mean what it was intended to mean at the time of adoption?

I believe Scalia meant, we the people.

I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

[Reagan Man]

As I have explained elsewhere, "original meaning" refers to the meaning a reasonable speaker of English would have attached to the words, phrases, sentences, etc. at the time the particular provision was adopted. It is originalist because it disregards any change to that meaning that may have occurred in the intervening years. It is objective insofar as it looks to the public meaning conveyed by the words used in the Constitution, rather than to the subjective intentions of its framers or ratifiers. By contrast, "original intent" refers to the goals, objectives, or purposes of those who wrote or ratified the text. These intentions could have been publicly known--or hidden behind a veil of secrecy. They could and indeed were likely to be in conflict.

- Randy E. Barnett, University of Chicago Law Review - Winter, 2001

[steve-b]

As stated, the question mixes prohibition of both guns and drugs via exercise of the commerce clause.

Of course, since intellectual honesty prohibits cherry-picking of only desired (or undesired) results of accepting (or rejecting) the Penumbral Emanation version of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Your proposed finessing of the issue is equivalent to separating the questions: 1)Do you want to eat lots of candy and ice cream?, and 2)Do you want to become severely obese and malnourished?

[steve-b]

He told you that IF the criminality in the area had a substantial effect on your ability to secure the office building against vandalism and graffiti, that you had the power to use necessary and proper force to suppress that criminality.

Irrelevant, since he doesn't have any authority outside his own property, any more than I do as his agent.

[robertpaulsen]

"Can you point me to this "substantially affects" language in the Constitution?"

No more than I can point you to the "right to privacy" language used in Roe v Wade or to the "concealed carry" language used in the 2nd amendment.

Are you saying the exact wording has to be in the U.S. Constitution for it to be valid? I do await your answer on this one.

"In other words, Congress has the right to regulate intrastate activity because anything done by every state within its borders would have an effect on interstate trade."

Hmmmm. I thought I was pretty clear. I'll try again.

Congress has the right to regulate legislate intrastate activity because if they determine that anything done by every state within its borders would have an a substantial effect on interstate trade they're currently regulating.

[robertpaulsen]

Obviously, a position poster that leads to so absurd a conclusion is without merit.

Obviously.

[robertpaulsen]

"Irrelevant, since he doesn't have any authority outside his own property, any more than I do as his agent."

Ah, but he does. He has a piece of paper that says he does. His power to protect his property was given to him by the people in the area, and that power dominates.

[robertpaulsen]

"Your proposed finessing of the issue is equivalent to separating the questions: 1)Do you want to eat lots of candy and ice cream?, and 2)Do you want to become severely obese and malnourished?"

Possessing guns leads to drug use?

[robertpaulsen]

You may not like Congress regulating the interstate commerce of machine guns, but at least they're being honest when they say that intrastate manufacture would have a substantial effect on their efforts.

You. You're just flat out lying.

[Reagan Man]

Do you?

[Zon]

Without the force of criminal law and the assistance of the authorities, just how do you propose that parents would identify, locate, sue, and collect from drug dealers? What about parents without the resources to do that? 

That straw man won't hunt. There would still be criminal law and police authorities.

And might some kids be allowed by their parents to buy and use drugs, notwithstanding the harm to them?

They may be allowed to use them,. Parents have been known to give their children aspirin, cough medicine, cigarettes, alcohol etc. I think it would be illegal to sell alcohol or drugs to minors. They don't have the maturity to make those informed decisions.

You can argue that the sky is falling endlessly but with the suggested amendment to the constitution noted earlier people and society would even more so increasingly prosper than they are now. In other words, people would more rapidly distance themselves from the people-and-society-will-run-headlong-into-destruction Chicken-Little fallacy that isn't happening now. Conversely it can be argued that parasitical elites are draining, usurping and destroying values earned by the host which they leech on.

[Zon]

After all, he didn't forcibly or fraudulently deprive you or anyone else of life, liberty, or property - he just offered your third grader a big fat rock.

You two appear to be woefully incompetent to be impartial jurors. Apparently neither of you as jurors would find in favor of the plaintiff -- the parent suing the drug dealer's attempt to harm the child -- instead you would find in favor of the drug dealer. Sheesh !

You yank on the emotional chain of the vast majority of people  to protect the innocent children from drug dealers and then you assume that as jurors they wouldn't side with the child's parents in their lawsuit. Nor side with the Plaintiff in a criminal case wherein the drug/alcohol dealer sold to a minor. 

You undermine your credibility as your sophistry bites back with honesty. See tagline. Correct your errors or  proceed at your own peril.

So as a practical matter, under such a scheme, neither you nor the state have any legal justification for depriving him of his property, or his liberty. So naturally, he just gives you the finger and heads right back to the playground. Lovely, eh?

Law does not justify or create individual life-and-property rights. A parent doesn't need the government's permission to file a lawsuit. It's a wonder you can decide for yourself anything to protect or defend yourself without the nanny state's permission.

[Zon]

There was no external influence/force that could make them challenge their integrity and moral code. They were not threatened or coerced to take action. Frankly, that I even pointed out that the individual is the highest authority was embarrassingly obvious to me. Every action I make I do so of my own free will by choice. Willing to accept the consequences -- risks and rewards of my actions. Self government acknowledges the individual as the highest authority.

[Zon]

Whoa! 1,500,000 people are arrested each year on drug charges. Not everyone is staying home doing drugs in their living room, amigo.

I've explained a few times that the validity of a law, or lack there of is determined by whether a person has ever proven that they were harmed by another person doing the act. A person possessing drugs walking down the street or driving with drugs in their possession does no harm to any person.

[Zon]

According to that, I can drink and drive. And speed... Certainly you're not going to punish someone who hasn't harmed anyone (or themselves).

I explained this as well, same as above. People have proven that persons speeding or driving while intoxicated caused them harm. I explained this issue to you six months ago... Operating a heavy vehicle posses a risk to other people as well as roads take into account the road design (curves, steep hills) and environment (pedestrians, school zones). Speeding exceeds other drivers expectations and driving while intoxicated places at minimum unnecessary risk on other people and is a threat to them.