Skip to comments.
FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Free Republic ^
| 11-3-05
Posted on 11/03/2005 2:24:08 PM PST by inquest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,701-2,720, 2,721-2,740, 2,741-2,760 ... 3,021-3,022 next last
To: don asmussen
Congress overstepped it's bounds Tpaine begged the question.
To: Mojave
Typically, when you can't dispute the facts, you start your "begging" routine.
Ho hum..
To: don asmussen
you can't dispute the facts, Imaginary ones.
To: Mojave
I've already had to explain this to you before. If guns were dope, then there would have been no point in using the word "and" in the question.
2,724
posted on
12/15/2005 7:23:51 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: Mojave
Your 'shtick' is really getting boring kiddo.. Get some new lines.
To: inquest
If guns were dope, then there would have been no point in using the word "and" in the question. Non sequitur.
To: Mojave
Didn't take you long to fold.
2,727
posted on
12/15/2005 7:28:00 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
To: Mojave; robertpaulsen
Hey paulsen, was the Supreme Court wrong to remand Stewart in light of Raich, or are the commerce clause issues surrounding possession of guns and drugs substantially similar in the two cases? Do they remand one case in light of another when the Constitutional issues are substantially different, or substantially similar?
To: Mojave
Or yourself, apparently. Nice to see you around these parts again, Roscoe.
To: publiusF27
"Do they remand one case in light of another when the Constitutional issues are substantially different, or substantially similar?"It was remanded to allow the 9th Circuit to arrive at its own conclusion. The implication of "in light of Raich" is that Congress can also criminalize possession of homemade machine guns.
But you knew that.
To: robertpaulsen
The implication of "in light of Raich" is that Congress can also criminalize possession of homemade machine guns.So just for the record, is it your view that the commerce clause (and we're just talking about the commerce clause, not any other part of the Constitution) applies to firearms differently from how it applies to narcotics?
2,732
posted on
12/16/2005 7:48:28 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
Applies differently? I don't understand your question.
Congress may regulate the interstate commerce of drugs or guns under the Commerce Clause. Congress may not, however, violate the second amendment.
So, at some point, I would imagine that the two products would be treated differently, but that has little to do with the Commerce Clause and more to do with the second amendment.
To: robertpaulsen
Applies differently? I don't understand your question.All I meant is that prior to the passage of the second amendment, there's nothing to suggest that Congress's commerce power over guns was any different than its commerce power over drugs. I was just making sure you shared that perception.
2,734
posted on
12/16/2005 1:26:34 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
"All I meant is that prior to the passage of the second amendment"So you're basicaly focusing on that period in our nation's history from 1787 to 1791? That crucial 4-year period?
Why is this period so important to you?
To: robertpaulsen
It helps in determining the original understanding of the document.
2,736
posted on
12/16/2005 1:52:04 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
In what way? Madison had promised a Bill of Rights to the delegation, so that 4-year period is meaningless.
To: robertpaulsen
He, Hamilton, and others also insisted that a bill of rights would be superfluous, since the federal governement wasn't delegated the power to do these things in the first place. That's why it wasn't included in the original document. They were afraid that inclusion of it would imply that the federal government could do what was not excepted. They were insistent that the presence of the bill of rights should in no way be construed to suggest that government would be able to do these prohibited things if the BOR hadn't been included.
2,738
posted on
12/16/2005 2:01:00 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
So Congress does not have the power to regulate the interstate commerce of guns?
To: robertpaulsen
It doesn't have power to restrict the possession of them, and never had it.
2,740
posted on
12/16/2005 2:23:41 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,701-2,720, 2,721-2,740, 2,741-2,760 ... 3,021-3,022 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson