Dornan to make drugs an issue

OC Register ^ | December 22, 2003 | MARTIN WISCKOL

[TheFrog]

I can see a Federalist Papers lecture on the horizon. Does anyone else find it somewhat amusing that now conservatives are using the liberal arguments for expanded federal powers and destruction of States' and Individual rights. Tell me pray tell how does a plant that is grown locally under a state sanctioned plan, that does not leave the state, involve interstate commerce?

[tacticalogic]

I was more interested in addressing the broader issues brought up by the posters

Is that another way of saying "I'm only interested in making sure my kids never smoke pot."?

[robertpaulsen]

"Tell me pray tell how does a plant that is grown locally under a state sanctioned plan, that does not leave the state, involve interstate commerce?"

Is wheat a plant? Well then, I can actually cite a court case, Wickard v. Filburn, which said exactly that.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I was more interested in addressing the broader issues brought up by the posters rather than, "Is the drug issue the right one for Bob Dornan?" Yawn.

My personal interest is that during the recent recall election in California, Rohrabacher was held up as a good, conservative Republican by a lot of FReepers who, like me, were unaware of his personal stance on medical marijuana.

There are posters here on FR whom expressed opinions similar to Rohrabacher's and were chided by other FReepers and were accused of the very same things that Dornan and Wachter said about Rohrabacher in this article. Namely, that they were using medical marijuana as a stepping stone toward full legalization.

Others said that everyone who supported medical marijuana was shill for Hillary-pal, George Soros.

So, I'm curious if these very same FReepers will now say about Rohrabacher the things they said of those FReepers who've expressed support medicinal marijuana laws on FR.

I'd also like to know whether these FReepers also believe that Dana Rohrabacher is a shill for Hillary-pal, George Soros or if this argument was rhetoric spewed forth merely to win an argument.

[tacticalogic]

I can actually cite a court case, Wickard v. Filburn, which said exactly that.

Can you cite any liberal organization or individual that doesn't agree with it?

[Wolfie]

People want what they want. Don't expect someone to accept anything else, even based on principle.

[TheFrog]

Yes this was required reading in Govt. 1. There was a time when a conservative espoused Wickard v. Filburn as an example of the Federal Government run amok. Perhaps you forgot this was a New Deal program that was being challenged? You do know that this was one of FDR’s favorite rulings, or that Republicans for decades have decried it as one of the worst attacks on States’ Rights? This is also the ruling that will eventually be used to confiscate all of your firearms.

[robertpaulsen]

Can you explain the reason, then, for your question? Was it to intentionally waste someone's time, like mine?

Can you give me a good reason to respond to any of your questions in the future?

[TheFrog]

Perhaps he forgot what the word amend means? 1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text) 2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition intransitive senses : to reform oneself

[TheFrog]

Actually, I can not see any reason for you (a rhino) to be reading a conservative board at all!

[robertpaulsen]

No explanation,huh? Other than to call names and state that people who post facts aren't welcome on FR?

This board is lookin' more like DU every day. Every day that TheFrog posts, that is.

[TheFrog]

I seem to recall it was you advancing the traditional liberal line and attack on states rights.

[breakem]

The day is soon arriving when we'll have more moderators than posters.

[robertpaulsen]

I believe I quoted constitutional law. You have a problem with that, write your congressman.

Because you and the rest of your circle jerk buddies feel that's something's unconstitutional, then by golly it is. Aren't the liberals into "feelings"?

[tacticalogic]

.

[Cultural Jihad]

I can't speak for those whom you mentioned, but it seems that Dana Rohrabacher is not basing his campaign on the championing of moral-liberalism, or some flakey ideology, or anti-social social-Darwinism, or personal-irresponsibility.

[TheFrog]

Would that be those of us who believe in the Constitution as written and Legally Amended.

[Dahlseide]

So you are fairly certain their will not be Dr shopping? Just like for "woman's health" re: abortion

[robertpaulsen]

Congress and the USSC don't need to reach into the Commerce Clause to violate religious freedoms. They can just go straight to the 1st amendment and violate that.

[robertpaulsen]

"Would that be those of us who believe in the Constitution as written and Legally Amended."

And interpreted by the applicable courts. Not by TheFrog and his friends.