Where did you read that? Seriously, I'd like to know.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
"Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following in Lopez:"
So you agree that Congress has no authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce? You believe that states and individuals are allowed to undermine and subvert constitutional Congressional interstate regulatory efforts?
THAT'S what Madison had in mind?
THAT'S what Madison had in mind?
One of the things that Madison more than probably had in mind was "to make regular" the commerce between one state and another, i.e. follow similar customs and procedures, prevent one state from putting a tarrif on another state's goods, etc. It's been said over and over again on these FR Drug War threads that in the 18th century, the verb "to regulate" also meant "to make regular," as in "regulate the militia," i.e., to make sure the militia used similar equipment throughout the several states. This makes perfect sense after fighting a global war relying, largely, on irregular forces wich often had basic supply and logistic problems because of differing command structures and equipment . . . basic things like the caliber of weapons.
Original intent is a tricky thing, no?
More absurd is to assert that the commerce clause applies to possession of an item. The commerce clause regards transportation of items across state lines. Not the possession of items.
And hey, if you think you have been harmed by a person's act of possessing drugs across the street or across town or across the state or across the country you could take that person to court before an impartial jury and do your best to convince them that you were harmed by the act of the defendant possessing drugs. I mean, if you were harmed by that act -- drug possession by the defendant -- you are due restitution for your pain and suffering. Somehow I think you'll lose that case 9 out of 10 times -- I think you know that too. Nor do I think that if drugs were decriminalized that you would chose to become a druggie -- I think you know that too.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson
You believe that Congress and the courts are allowed to undermine and subvert the constitutional limits placed on the federal government by the States?
And do you still beat your wife?