Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 08/19/2007 2:24:04 PM PDT by Wolfie
Yeah peckerwood..thats why you're supposed to INVESTIGATE before you get a "door-knocker paper".
That would seem simple enough. But I’m sure Sgt. Valentine has another agenda.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Yes...but it takes some real legal and logical gymnastics to come to the conclusion that the Commerce Clause applies to pot grown in Oregon by an Oregonian and sold in Oregon to Oregonians.
Never fear, the feds performed this amazing trick years ago on our behalf.
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
Socialists insist that Congress can make 'findings' that give them powers not delegated.
Heh...by that definition, most of the Republican party is Socialist.
Having participated in several Ron Paul threads, I do not find the conclusion absurd.
>>”up until the lifetime of my grandfather, government did not think it had the power to regulate plants and chemicals”
In 1842, Congress forbade the importation of obscene literature or pictures from abroad. In 1884, the exportation or shipment in interstate commerce of livestock having any infectious disease was forbidden.
‘’The power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.’’
— Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622 (1885)<<
With Europe and the Indian nations not being states you don’t even need the interstate commerce clause - that’s international. Sick cattle sold across state lines is clearly under the ISCC.
But...
A plant growing in the soil from locally obtained seed with no intent that any portion ever cross state lines is about as much not the Federal government’s business as you get.
That said, if a neighbor had a 65 foot green house that appeared to be full of pot I would think it was for more than 4 people. Its been a long time since I around people who smoked pot but a pound used to be a mythical amount that would last a group of boys a year or more.
And these people are claiming 24*1.5 pounds = 36 pounds are for 4 people? That’s hard to believe.
The Commerce Clause does not apply to pot grown in Oregon by an Oregonian and sold in Oregon to Oregonians.
I'm sure you'll agree that if we let Oregonians grow and sell pot, we have to let everyone else, right? So assuming we have 1-2 million people growing pot in their backyards, do you think some of that pot might make it into interstate commerce?
Given that it's legal in the states themselves, the only time the federal government could intervene is the exact instant it crosses state lines, right? On either side of the state line it's legal, and no one knows if the pot came from out-of-state.
Now, you may be grinning and giggling at the fact that you think you found a way to scam the system and undermine Congress' efforts (which reflect the will of the people, by the way). But the Founding Fathers anticipated this.
The Necessary and Proper Clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate those in-state activities that have a substantial effect on their interstate regulatory efforts. Without that power, you can see how Congress can be subverted.
So, it is the Necessary and Proper Clause that controls in-state activities, not the Commerce Clause.
True, but I doubt Europe or the Indians would sign a treaty cutting off our trade.
The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes, in addition to regulating commerce among the several states.
And note that the Founding Fathers used the same phrase, "to regulate" in all three areas. Meaning that if they can prohibit trade with Europe, they can prohibit trade with the Indians or between the states.
I doubt that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used once in the same sentence.
"And these people are claiming 24*1.5 pounds = 36 pounds are for 4 people? That’s hard to believe."
Yeah, if I was a cop looking at a 65 foot greenhouse growing pot for four people, I'd be a tad suspicious myself. Of course, the posters on this thread seem to feel that the cops should know it was legal, even though the licensing and record keeping by the Oregon government is practically nonexistent.
...which construction would permit Federal regulation of everything down to the length of our toenails, should the legislature see fit to pass such a law or to hand the regulatory authority over to an administrative bureau, for that matter.
which construction would permit Federal regulation of everything down to the length of our toenails, should the legislature see fit to pass such a law or to hand the regulatory authority over to an administrative bureau, for that matter.
Heh...by that definition, most of the Republican party is Socialist.
Yep, both of our political parties are controlled [at the national/congressional level] by their socialistic factions.
It is rare, particularly on FR, to find an open advocate of that socialistic position. - And ya gotta love the opportunity to expose its basic anti-constitutionism.
To be fair, I haven't read all of his posts, either.
Only if the length of our toenails had a substantial effect on the commerce that Congress was constitutionally regulating. Can you please give me an example of where that might happen?
I didn't think so. Thank you for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
rp, thankfully I can't think of an instance where the government might have a legitimate interest in regulating the length of our toenails. That's why I used it as an example...it's called hyperbole...exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis.
Many people here at FR use it without realizing it.
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.
I fully endorse Jefferson’s idea as expressed in your quotation, and particularly with regard to those who would choose to experiment with a yet larger, more pervasive, and more powerful government than we now have.
I don't understand. Just a few posts ago you said the federal government could. Now you're saying you can't think of a legitimate interest why they would.
Are you saying that you would support the regulating of toenails if the government interest WAS legitimate?
Hate to bust yer bubble, but this stuff never leaves Oregon. How is that 'interstate commerce'?
Oh I forgot. You're a liberal. Therefore everything is interstate commerce.
Never mind.
L
I get tired of sparring, rp, and frankly I no longer have time for it. I hereby declare defeat...you win. Congrats.
Afterwards they would have all high fived each other and then got their stories straight about the 'threatening manner' the deceased accused was acting in.
L
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.