Posted on 06/28/2004 12:54:51 PM PDT by cryptical
Perhaps you should not go around perhapsing.
No. You have the cart before the horse.
First, Congress must be regulating some interstate commercial product or activity to begin with. Then, they must determine that some other activity "substantially affects" their interstate regulatory effort. If my activities do not "substantially affect" that effort, Congress can't touch it.
I have a garden full of vegetables that Congress is not regulating. Could they? Of course, though I can't think of a reason they would. But if they did, my complaints would be directed at them, not at the USSC's interpretation of the commerce clause.
The government is currently far more intrusive into my daily life that they could ever be by banning my carrots. Maybe we should be focusing our efforts there, starting with taxes.
I'm the realist. You're the one living in 1904 la-la land.
Contrast that with the 8th Circuit decision in U.S. v. Pearson, 8 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 1993). Basically the court said that they didn't care how the machine gun came to be -- his possession alone "threatens the lives and safety of law enforcement officials and the public at large".
"This court has recently considered and rejected the identical constitutional challenges raised here in United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) (Hale), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997, 113 S.Ct. 1614, 123 L.Ed.2d 174 (1993). Although Congress need not make specific findings of fact to support its conclusion that a class of activity affects interstate commerce, if Congress makes such findings they carry great weight in this court's analysis. Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971). Hale examined the legislative history of section 922(o) and determined that Congress adequately addressed the relationship between the proliferation of machine guns, violent crime, and narcotics trafficking. See H.R.Rep. No. 495, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., at 1-5, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1327, 1327-31; Hale, 978 F.2d at 1018. Congress reasonably concluded that mere possession of firearms threatens the lives and safety of law enforcement officials and the public at large. Accordingly, the enactment of 18 U.S.C. section 922(o) represents a valid exercise of Congress' commerce clause power."
-- U.S. v. Pearson
The 9th Circuit is goofy.
I thought the test wasn't wheather your activities "substantially affect" that effort, but wheather it might "substantially affect" that effort if everyone did it, with "substantially" being entirely subjective.
I'll make you a deal tpaine. You bring back the limited government we had in 1904 and the society we had back them that took personal responsibility for their actions, and I'll vote to legalize drugs.
Sorry paulsen, - I just can't believe you. Everything you post supports the authoritarian socialist 'line'. -- Except when you want to pretend you're a conservative.
Your credibility here at FR is shot, imo.
Whatever I post, I post in response to the way things are not the way thing were back in 1904.
Yes, we know. You ~like~ politics the way they are. Authoritarian socialism suits you just fine.
I'm the realist. You're the one living in 1904 la-la land.
Calling for the restoration of our free republic is 'real' rationality, paulsen.
You, -- pretending to be a conservative while you support socialism, -- are engaged in a form of self delusion, imo. Seek help.
Of course. It is reasonable to assume that if I did it, others would.
And yes, it is up to a different branch of government, the USSC, to determine if the combined activity will have a substantial effect on Congress' regulatory efforts.
In tpaine's 1904 la-la land, the people rule.
In robertpaulsen's 2004 reality land, the lawyers rule.
The question is, how low can we go before the Jeffersonian solution to usurpation presents itself?
Some think the lawyers should decide, others think everyone counts equally.
Two schools of thought, as it were.
Which represents American values?
Let the reader decide.
Just clarifying where you think the limit (or absence of one) is.
Let's be honest here. The only thing tpaine likes about 1904 is that drugs were legal. He wouldn't survive a week in 1904 without some kind of social safety net to take care of him.
Your cynicism about American self-government is deplorable, and your smear of tpaine is reprehensible.
Another day, another dollar, I suppose.
Four words for you: Republican Prescription Drug Program
"and your smear of tpaine is reprehensible."
Thank you. I didn't realize it was that good.
Let's be honest here. The only thing tpaine likes about 1904 is that drugs were legal.
Paulsen, you don't have a clue. The only drug I've ever really used/abused is booze, long ago in my 30's/40's.
He wouldn't survive a week in 1904 without some kind of social safety net to take care of him.
BS.. I'll make you a bet paulsen. I'll bet that you can't honestly respond, and tell us your occupation..
Two bits you work in a field highly dependent on our present day 'social' structure.
I was a self employed building contactor for over 40 years.
-- And in the '04, 'style', I did it all. - The summer of '68 for instance, I built a house at Tahoe from scratch with no subs, and very little framing labor help.
How long would a 1904 government last in 2004?
Another weird diversionary question, paulsen. -- Our constitutional system worked just fine till you prohibitionist socialist types got power. YOU clowns are the 'problem', and have been since the 30's, when FDR took over.
Probably about as long as it took to vote everyone out of office and install congressmen who would pass laws removing personal responsibility and creating a nanny state to take care of the population from cradle to grave.
Babble on. You support the nanny state, not I.
robertpaulsen;robertpaulsen;robertpaulsen;
Called your bluff I see..
Belated 4th of July bump!
;^)
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.