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.
Throughout US history the commerce clause has been abused many times. The 2nd amendment protects the rights of Americans to legally own firearms. ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I don't agree that drugs are in the same catagory as firearms and no one has ever been able to offer up a rationale for such a position.
>>>> 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?
In my original post at RE:#17, I stated yes. That hasn't changed. Rockingham made the point earlier when he posted:
"The task of genuine originalism is to begin with the Constitution as written and try to understand it in the context of the founding era. But letters and writing of the Framers should not be preferred to the text of the document itself. On that basis, the commerce clause is so broadly written that, as Madison suggests, appeals for limits are properly directed at Congress, not the courts."
In the recent SCOTUS decision of June.6, 2005, AG Gonzales v RAICH, Justice Scalia made the case for the CSA of 1970 being a proper and legal use of the commerce clause by Congress. Snippets.
I agree with the Court's holding that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) may validly be applied to respondents' cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for personal, medicinal use.
Since Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971), our cases have mechanically recited that the Commerce Clause permits congressional regulation of three categories: (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce.
Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce in two general circumstances. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants.