Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Federalist.
"that the fedgov has nearly unlimited power?"
"It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"
-- Mr. Justice Hughes, The Shreveport Rate Cases (1914)
Not to me, it doesn't. Apples and oranges.
I wonder if the consumption of milk fell during this period. Pepsi?
Now, you wish to remain part of society, fine. But we have established a set of laws to live by, and they don't include smoking dope, snorting cocaine, and mainlining heroin..
So, your choice. Our way or the highway. Or, get enough dopers together and change the laws (there's a novel idea!).
Tho' it's obvious another thought you were serious, I do so hope that was sarcasm.
I should have said, "What a selfish, individualistic position to take."
Back in 1942, there was a wheat farmer with an attitude similar to yours. A little background:
In the 1930's, there was a glut of wheat on the world market; prices were low, and American wheat farmers were going bankrupt. Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, limiting wheat production, but guaranteeing a higher price per bushel. Farmers were assigned an allotment.
Mr. Filburn grew his allotment of 11 acres of wheat. He also grew an additional 12 acres of wheat for his own use on the farm (flour, animal feed, etc.).
Now, I know you would see nothing wrong with this. Those 12 acres of wheat were not "commerce" in that they stayed on the farm. They certainly weren't "interstate commerce". Therefore, the federal government can't touch our greedy little farmer, now can they?
Needless to say, of course they can, and should. If Mr. Filburn is allowed to double his production, then certainly the other wheat farmers could do the same. Then what happens?
Hell, you don't care. Gimme mine, and screw everyone else.
Now, you can argue that the federal government shouldn't have regulated the wheat, fixing a higher price to the consumer. I think this is a valid argument for another day.
But for certain reasons, they chose to do so. And since they did, their reach extends to those areas that "substantially affect" their interstate efforts. This was the USSC ruling in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
I don't typically think of the term "individualistic" with a negative connotation. In fact, I feel that individualism is the cornerstone of conservatism.
That type of statement gives me the creeps.
You would conform to weapons bans?
I agree.
individualism - a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence.
However, I'm referring to the person who values self over the needs of the group.
individualistic - marked by or expressing individuality.
I hear you. Perhaps it was just the way it was worded that creeped me out.
I will not predict my possible response should gun confiscation every become a reality. I already have predicted my response. Ain't purdy.
No, a certain drug and certain other drugs.
My appeal is not to "dopers" but to those who realize that 'the law is the law' is no argument against changing the law.
I'm quite familiar with the case, and that is not my attitude. There is a glaring difference between the federal government telling a farmer (who directly benefits from production quotas and price supports) that he cannot plant beyond his quota level (for whatever use) and the federal government telling an ordinary citizen (who is harmed by quotas and price supports) that he cannot plant a legal crop in his backyard garden for personal use.
I'm sorry if you can't see this difference. And a bit saddened, because you're obviously intelligent. But I have to remind myself that intelligence is not necessarily indicative of common sense.
BTW, if farmer Filburn had just switched over to rye or oats or some similar crop for that back 11.9, he could have saved himself a whole lot of trouble...
I never did respond to this...
Right now I guarantee that I can go to any city in the US with a population of about 30,000 or more and by asking just a few questions (the first of which I'd feel perfectly comfortable asking a cop) I could find out where to go to safely buy just about any illicit drug I would want (not that I want any.) These drugs would be cheaper and stronger than they would have been back when your data starts.
I call that a failure, regardless of what your data shows. BTW, picking an extreme as an endpoint won't make you a friend of many statisticians.
Once planted, it becomes an illegal crop.
This is the problem with the way you phrased your argument, and the reason that I almost didn't respond to it.
You paint a picture of planting harmless little tomatoes in a tiny little garden and ask me how the government could be so authortarian and mean to prevent such an activity. I'm surprised you didn't add little old grandma on social security to your scenario.
Give me a break.
The government has the power. If they ever did regulate tomatoes, you can certainly try to make the case that small producers have no effect on the overall market. (That argument was successful in the Gun-Free Schools Act and the Violence Against Women Act.) But, if local production did have an effect, why would you knowingly subvert Congressional regulatory efforts?
"It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination."
Mr. Justice Jackson, Wickard v. Filburn
Your tomato issue is with Congress, not with the Commerce Clause, not with the U.S. Constitution, not with robertpaulsen. Just because you may have little support for your position is no excuse to find supposed flaws in the the U.S. Constitution or the courts, and seek redress there.
Poor example. The argument against those was not that they didn't have an affect on the market, but that there was no discernible "market" to affect.
You can fill that blank with just about any illegal activity from prostitution to murder-for-hire.
You set up this straw man (the drug ban isn't working) just to knock it down with your simplistic statement above. As I said to you before, you sure do know how to set the bar high.
Drugs are illegal. Over a period of time (not an extreme endpoint), we have seen the usage of drug decline. That cannot be denied. My conclusion is that the program is working.
You've yet to explain why it is that "period of time" is relevant, but the "extreme endpoint" is not.
In Lopez, the USSC used four considerations: One, the economic nature of the regulated activity. Two, an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce. Three, express congressional findings. Four, if the link between the activity and a substantial effect on interstate commerce was attenuated.
These considerationswere also applied in VAWA.
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.