I didn't realize that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause was done by a FR poll. That sounds too much like "rule of man" vs. "rule of law"
".Nope, seeing the USSC has made a ~lot~ of dubious opinions over the years"
Be that as it may, Marbury v Madison says that the dubious opinion stands. The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit -- no question begging necessary.
"The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit."
You lost that debate on the FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts
I didn't realize that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause was done by a FR poll.
BS. -- You know the 'poll' wasn't the issue. -- We argued the issue for over 3000 posts, and you & your faction left the field in defeat..
That sounds too much like "rule of man" vs. "rule of law"
Petty little nitpick. Typical.
--- seeing the USSC has made a ~lot~ of dubious opinions over the years its not surpising to see you defend the Big Gov position.
Be that as it may, Marbury v Madison says that the dubious opinion stands.
Nope, Marbury says that socalled 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution are void from the day they are passed.
Learn to read.
The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit -- no question begging necessary.
Millions of words have been written to rebut that totally unsupported begging question. -- Some of them here at FR. -- Words you cannot refute:
FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms? Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts