Posted on 06/24/2005 2:54:11 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Our entire Constitutional system? I made no such claim.
The fact that the USSC had recently bitch-slapped Congress with their decisions in Lopez and Morrison, sent the message that there's a limit to Congress' Commerce Clause authority.
I wish, however, that the voters would have done this, telling their Congressmen to cool it with the overreaching. We can't rely on the USSC to carry our water forever.
(Recently, in Lopez and Morrison, for example, the USSC did not agree with the Congressional findings, and ruled that the Congressional actions -- banning guns near schools and violence against women -- were unconstitutional because they did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.)
Rightly enough, despite the fact that the gun finding should have been thrown out primarily on 2nd Amendment grounds.
I thought I said "believe" not "approve" the findings. Also, the findings themselves are not lawful or illegal -- they're merely claims made by Congress.
Exactly, they are disputed claims, ones that you believe are valid, and ones that the USSC 'believes' are valid, without a basis in the words of the Constitution itself.
An example of this is in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Section 801. Now, you're saying that if the USSC accepts these "findings", they're in collusion?
Yes, they are attempting to give congress an unenumerated power to control the use & ownership of property.
Since the court itself hadn't conducted its own study, I don't believe they're in a position to dispute the above. They merely stated that, based on these Congressional findings, the laws controlling intrastate activity were Necessary and Proper to effectively regulate the interstate commerce of illegal recreational drugs.
Congress has no enumerated power to declare such drugs illegal, nor does the USSC.
(Maybe you and I just have a semantics misunderstanding.)
I doubt that.
Since Lopez and Morrison didn't have a direct link to specific Commerce Clause legislation, the findings were diluted to the point of being immaterial (Guns near schools may affect education, which may affect commerce; violence against women affects their ability to engage in commerce -- really pathetic arguments)
Yet you support the power of Congress to make such pathetic arguments & findings.. Why?
The system does work
No, our Constitutional system is obviously not working well at all, and one can only wonder why you imagine that it is.
Our entire Constitutional system? I made no such claim.
Your words above are clear enough for me.
The fact that the USSC had recently bitch-slapped Congress with their decisions in Lopez and Morrison, sent the message that there's a limit to Congress' Commerce Clause authority. I wish, however, that the voters would have done this, telling their Congressmen to cool it with the overreaching. We can't rely on the USSC to carry our water forever.
Didn't you just approve of the latest Court/Congress collusion on Commerce Clause authority about medical marijuana?
Ah. It becomes clear.
Certainly if you believe this, we have nothing to discuss.
Can you show me the enumeration of that power in the Constitution?
Can't you see it?
An enumeration of a power to make drugs illegal? Sure, it's right before the power to regulate air traffic and right after the power to establish interstate highways.
Congress has the power to make air traffic illegal? Or to forbid interstate highways?
Can't you see it?
If you can 'see' such powers, no wonder you don't want to discuss them.
Certain air traffic, sure. We've come pretty close to shooting down a few over New York and Washington, DC. Plus, the aircraft must be certified. The pilot must be certified.
Congress has been prohibiting interstate commerce since 1886 with their statutes against infected beef. The USSC ruled long ago that the power to regulate = the power to prohibit.
Think about it. What is the natural state of commerce between the states? Free and open, correct?
Therefore, any regulation restricts trade. By definition.
Can't you see it?
If you can 'see' such powers, no wonder you don't want to discuss them.
Certain air traffic, sure. We've come pretty close to shooting down a few over New York and Washington, DC. Plus, the aircraft must be certified. The pilot must be certified.
You're hyping their power to reasonably regulate into a power to prohibit. No such prohibitory power exists.
Congress has been prohibiting interstate commerce since 1886 with their statutes against infected beef. The USSC ruled long ago that the power to regulate = the power to prohibit.
'Ruled'? On what basis? None exists in the Constitution. That so-called ruling is repugnant to written Constitutional principles.
Think about it. What is the natural state of commerce between the states? Free and open, correct? Therefore, any regulation restricts trade. By definition.
Wordplay. A power to reasonably regulate does not equal a power to prohibit.
Show me an enumerated power to prohibit.
Like this:
"High court" just says no. Dope smokers are still one toke over the line. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417402/posts?page=29#29
This is the best decision of the year. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417402/posts?page=44#44
I've never subscribed to all of this "medical" marijuana crap. It's just a subterfuge to legalize marijuana in stages. [...] I applaud the Supreme Court's decision. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417402/posts?page=58#58
It is also my opinion, and apparently an opinion shared by a majority of the court, that it is not an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause to read it as giving Congress the power to regulate or prohibit the sale or use of marijuana. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417402/posts?page=71#71
Cheered constitutionally? Cheered morally? Legally? Socially?
I've posted the evidence; I'll leave the categorization up to you.
This is in the playbook on the destruction of America....when the state replaces God...all our God given rights are gone. The state is now our God and TPTB now gives us our rights.
In the Raisch case it doesn't tie back to what they're doing interstate, it ties forward. The objective of the CSA is not to regulate interstate commerce, but to control individual drug use. There was no perceived defect or injustice in the state of commerce among the several states they were seeking to remedy, they were trying to control the personal behaviour of individual citizens. As far as it is relevant to the Raisch case, the objective is to keep people from smoking pot. To accomplish that they seek to prohibit, at the individual level, the ability to buy, sell or possess it (intrastate commerce). In order to regulate the the intrastate commerce, they constructed an interstate regulatory scheme that requires the regulation of intrastate commerce. Sometimes it "appears" that they are regulating intrastate commerce, because sometimes that is precisely what they are doing.
The executive branch is to uphold the organic constitution of the USA, when a ruling is made by any fed blk robe that does not uphold our constitution....IT IS TO BE DISREGARDED!!!!
It looks to me as though Mr. Justice Souter is very soon to feel the impact of one of his rulings, at least!............like no house to return to for his long vacations from the back-breaking work of being a "man in black!" Where his abode once stood will be a lively resort hotel, museum and bar! YES-S-S!
Thanks for your comments, shield. I feel the same way. This rogue court has overstepped its boundaries, and there will be a redress of grievances. Americans aren't going to "take it any more!"
Char :)
It's a very upset mad group of conservatives that have petitioned the city to obtain Souter's house....I love it!!!
Thanks for the great comment, shield!
Char :)
You show me an enumerated power to allow.
Your mind is made up. There's no point in me going any further with you in this thread.
If you wish to learn a little history, next time be more open minded.
I'll tell you where they are, hiding under their desks hoping this will all go away.
Besides, who gives a shit what thses so-called officials think? It's gonna be up to people like US to reign in the tyrants.
A revolution every now and again is a good thing.
You show me an enumerated power to allow.
The words of the 9th & 10th amendments 'allow' the people to retain all unenumerated rights & powers not delegated.
Your mind is made up. There's no point in me going any further with you in this thread. If you wish to learn a little history, next time be more open minded.
You are talking to yourself in a mirror.
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.