So do you think the Commerce Clause delegates to fedgov the authority to impose national prohibition... YES or NO?
I think I am pretty well fed up with the lawless and unreliable libertarians.
I think I am pretty well fed up with your pointless challenges.
>>We have now heard from one of our resident libertarians, crying for drug legalization.
>
>So do you think the Commerce Clause delegates to fedgov the authority to impose national prohibition... YES or NO?
As much as I hate “precedent” because it is used, roughly, by the Judiciary to play the childeren’s game ‘Telephone’ with the rights of the Citizen I will use it to my own advantage.
Prohibition *REQUIRED* a constitutional amendment [#18] in order to impose the federal regulation of a substance [Alcohol]; that Amendment was repealed in its entirety [#21], so then: by what authority is this “War on Drugs” federal regulation of substances? The precedence is set that it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
>I think I am pretty well fed up with you druggies.
Would you call me a druggie because I do not believe that the Federal government has the LEGITIMATE authority to regulate those substances?
>I think I am pretty well fed up with the lawless and unreliable libertarians.
And what is more lawless than our Judiciaries where they declare that imagined numbers (”projections”) cover the requirement that Eminent Domain be for “public use” [2005, Kelo v. New London]?
That “We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” [20011, IN Supreme Court] — 2nd-to-last sentence on THE FIRST PAGE — http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
>I think I am pretty well fed up with your pointless challenges.
Yes, because citing the actual Constitutions and court decrees is pointless. [/sarc]