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 ...
They both failed "economic nature" because there was no discernible "market" involved.
I would never cite some endpoint (or any point, for that mattter) and claim that it meant anything other than a snapshot of activity. I cited statistics over a period of time to prove my argument.
He relies on a straw man to "prove" his.
You also maintain that only that period of time is relevant to the argument, and that this "snapshot" is the only acceptable representation of the historical data.
According to the government, the "market" was the school children, and they were involved.
"The Government also argued that the presence of guns at schools poses a threat to the educational process, which in turn threatens to produce a less efficient and productive workforce, which will negatively affect national productivity and thus interstate commerce."
The USSC rightly determined that the argument was specious. I would have used the term "laughable", but that's why I'm not a USSC justice.
In these two cases, yes, it was found that there was not a "market", per se. But it doesn't follow that the only cases the USSC will reject are those without a "market" -- they did cite three other considerations, which is my point.
And that is why it is a poor example in this case.
Have you got actual data prior to mine? Prior to 1979? Let's see it.
I'm working with what's out there. I draw conclusions from it. You got a different interpretation, let's hear it. You got additional data, let's see it.
Time to get involved in the game, tacticalogic, rather than sitting on the sidelines "booing" the players.
No, it does not (at least not through the commerce clause.) The commerce clause applied to farmer Filburn because he was a commercial farmer growing a crop to sell. I am quite confident that if Filburn had been a subsistence farmer who sold none of his production, then the decision would have gone the other way. Besides, it's pretty tough to fine a guy based on a percentage of price support he receives if the support is nothing.
Your tomato issue is... not with robertpaulsen.
The only issue I have with you is that debating you is like talking to a brick wall. If congress tried to regulate little old grandma (to use your words) growing tomatoes based on the commerce clause, that regulation would get tossed by the courts in a heartbeat.
Conclusions based on extrapolations you can't support. I wouldn't accept that kind of methodology and argument in support of "global warming" theories, why should I accept it from you?
"Boo", he says from the sidelines.
(Yawn)
You've picked 1979 as your endpoint to show how the WOD has worked. President Reagan did not start the WOD until 1982 and it was a rather slow start. Funding for the WOD was $2 billion in 1983 and didn't crack the $5 billion level until 1988. Funding finally kicked into high gear in 1990 when it broke the $10 billion mark. Rounding up slightly, in 2001 it was at $20 billion. Using your data and starting in 1988 when the US got serious about winning the WOD, drug use has remained flat and spending has quadrupled. That is a failed policy.
Bull$hit. That is not why it applied.
"But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
-- Wickard v. Filburn
"In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for the appellee's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. He was given notice of such allotment in July of 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested."
-- Wickard v. Filburn
If Congress were regulating tomatoes, and you were given notice, game over.
"I am quite confident that if Filburn had been a subsistence farmer who sold none of his production, then the decision would have gone the other way."
Yes, if he would have grown his allotted 11.1 acres and sold none (keeping the harvest for himself), nothing would have happened. But he got greedy. He wanted his cake ($1.16 per bushel when going rate was $.40) and he wanted to eat it, too.
"Besides, it's pretty tough to fine a guy based on a percentage of price support he receives if the support is nothing."
The penalty was $.49 per excess bushel. Simple as that. He refused to pay it.
I thought you were "quite familiar" with this case.
Reagan came into office, got serious about drug use, signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, and started the "Just Say No" campaign.
It's not just the money. It's not just the law. It's also attitude and enforcement.
Drug use is down. That's a successful policy.
Prohibition started in 1937. At the time most people didn't even know what it was. The government propaganda campaign has had the net effect of making it more popular, because people recognize BS when they see it, IMHO.
The Marijuana Tax Act started in 1937.
Or are you now admitting that the federal government had the power in 1937 to make certain drugs illegal?
The MTA had the practical effect of imposing prohibition by requiring a tax stamp you couldn't buy. Stuff your sophistry.
The penalty was $.49 per excess bushel. Simple as that. He refused to pay it.
I thought you were "quite familiar" with this case.
I am. My point above referred to the subsistence farmer. I'll try to be brief and literal. As I'm sure you know, the commerce clause is a blunt instrument. It's applied to laws enacted by Congress as required. Wickard v. Filburn is more about the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 than it is the commerce clause.
The Act has a "small farm" exemption that allows a farmer to do just about anything with his - minimum - 15 acres. This is the subsistence farmer thing. It's derived from English common law. The Act had that exemption because it wouldn't have passed without it. Under common law, you have the right to provide for yourself on the land that you own.
Which brings us to the tomato thing, as brought up by getsoutalive. It's ludicrous to suggest that a law prohibiting the personal growing of tomatoes could be passed by any local, state, or federal gov't. It's in total opposition to common law.
This may surprise you but I agree with your assessment of Wickard v. Filburn. But I obviously disagree with your application of it. To make the leap that you do is to move this well-meaned but extended ruling to the point of farce.
I wasn't aware of that fact. If you would have brought this up sooner when making your point about the tomatoes, it would have saved a lot of time. Time that I don't have.
I'm not on this board to play gotcha games. In the future, I'll be much more careful when responding to your posts, if I respond at all.
Actually it's a rather fine one. That Congress abuses it by using it as a bludgeon is not fault of the clause.
Then explain that last post you made to me.
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.