FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?

Free Republic ^ | 11-3-05

[inquest]

There's a new poll up on the side. Do you think the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution authorizes federal laws against narcotics and firearms? Now lest everyone forget, this isn't asking whether you personally agree with such laws. It's about whether your honest reading of the Constitution can justify them.

While you're thinking it over, it might help to reflect on what James Madison had to say about federal power over interstate commerce:

Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

I'll be looking forward to your comments.

[Rockingham]

Unfortunately, Madison being unavailable today, we cannot demand that he answer our queries in a certain formula. We have to take what we have from him and do our best with that.

[Know your rights]

Roe v Wade is viewed as a bad decision by most conservatives and even some high profile liberals. [...] Then you take a legal run at it and we'll see how far you get.

I love when big-government "conservatives" undercut their own arguments. Thanks for the laugh!

I understand, you libertarians are easily amused. (Who said I'm a libertarian?)

Only big-government "conservatives" are unamused when big-government "conservatives" undercut their own arguments.

[Rockingham]

Perhaps not, but it establishes my interpretation of the term "several states" as correct.

[Know your rights]

If someone says, "If taken literally, this clause would mean such-and-such. YET...", most people would understand the "yet" to indicate that it's probably not to be taken literally.

If Madison wanted to say that the same extent belonged to both, he wouldn't have bothered with the "if taken literally" disclaimer. He would have simply said, "Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent belongs to it."

Unfortunately, Madison being unavailable today, we cannot demand that he answer our queries in a certain formula. We have to take what we have from him and do our best with that.

And inquest has done far better than you.

[Know your rights]

Which in no way supports the claim that regulating commerce "among the several states" includes uniform regulation of commerce within states.

Perhaps not,

Clearly not.

but it establishes my interpretation of the term "several states" as correct.

Which has no apparent relevance apart from the unsupported claim.

[tacticalogic]

Take a look at the "necessary and proper" clause. Where the Framers granted authority to the federal government, they meant for that authority to be effective.

Where the Framers granted authority, and where they did not is the question. I don't think anyone has proposed that the Framers intened for federal authority they granted to be ineffective, or they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

[Know your rights]

Think of the phrase "jointly and severally liable". Do you know what the "severally" means in that phrase? It means separate from one another. So "commerce among the several states" means among the states considered as seprate entities from each other. In other words, interstate commerce.

In the context of the Constitution, the word "several" has absolutely nothing to do with quantity - either directly, indirectly, or tangentially.

Paging Rockingham ....

[Reagan Man]

What I should have said was, you libertarians are easily amused and bemused.

[Know your rights]

I don't think anyone has proposed that the Framers intened for federal authority they granted to be ineffective, or they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

But they may very well have granted limited authority understanding that it wouldn't necessarily be effective in EVERY case ... so the argument that federal interstate regulation of drugs is ineffective without federal intrastate regulation of drugs in no way establishes the constitutionality of the latter.

[Know your rights]

What I should have said was

What you should have done was quit while you were behind. Your post stands as self-refuted.

[Know your rights]

Who said I'm a libertarian?

[Rockingham]

In my view, the Second Amendment forbids federal or state prohibition of supposed "assault weapons" to most individuals.

Congressional and state legislative findings are entitled to deference, not blind acceptance. There is an elaborate and little recognized line of analysis by which federal and state courts assess such findings. In a sense, the process requires fact-finding by legislative bodies, with the courts then able to grade the results. Sometimes, the enactment at issue fails.

[Reagan Man]

Still confused, I see. Carry on, mister libertarian.

[Reagan Man]

You prefer libertine to libertarian. Okay.

[Know your rights]

Still confused

Yes, you are ... shame about that.

[tacticalogic]

But they may very well have granted limited authority understanding that it wouldn't necessarily be effective in EVERY case ... so the argument that federal interstate regulation of drugs is ineffective without federal intrastate regulation of drugs in no way establishes the constitutionality of the latter.

Read Madison's letter again. "Regulating drugs" seems to be more a "positive purpose of the general government" than an injustice among the states. In the context of that letter there seem to be more fundamental questions than what is or isn't interstate.

[Know your rights]

You prefer libertine to libertarian.

I prefer that you address my arguments rather than slapping labels on me ... particularly labels whose applicability you can't support.

[Know your rights]

In the context of that letter there seem to be more fundamental questions than what is or isn't interstate.

I agree ... but I'm for the time being confining myself to the narrower question.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I prefer that you address my arguments ...

As soon as you make a substantive argument that is worth responding to, I'll consider a rebuttal.

>>>> ... rather than slapping labels on me ... particularly labels whose applicability you can't support.

That's a two way street, bucko. If you don't like labels, don't label others. Btw, you want respect, then earn it. So far the only thing you've earned is ridicule.

[tacticalogic]

I agree ... but I'm for the time being confining myself to the narrower question.

I like getting the fundamental questions addressed first, before getting into details than may not even be relevant depending on what the answers to those questions are.