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.

[inquest]

When you learn the difference between "possession" and "commerce", then we can continue this discussion.

[inquest]

Oh, and can you back that up with any court cases? (minor point, I know.)

More than just a minor point; it's a foolish point. The whole discussion is over whether the court cases are correct. So once again, you're begging the question, assuming the premise.

[Mojave]

How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit?

They aren't really interested in interstate commerce, just dope. It's their smokescreen.

[Mojave]

When you learn the difference between "possession" and "commerce"

Commerce without possession. Trippy!

[inquest]

No quotes to back that up, naturally. But then, it's normal for trolls to hold themselves to a lower standard than they hold everyone else to.

[inquest]

Possession without commerce. Not trippy.

[Mojave]

No quotes to back that up

No answer to his simple question.

"How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit?"

Assuming you're serious, try to answer it.

[inquest]

No answer to his simple question.

Because his "simple question" was used to evade the point, as per his usual procedure.

[Mojave]

Possession without commerce.

It falls from the sky? Commerce is the means by which our society has become wealthy and obtained its possessions.

[Mojave]

his "simple question" was used to evade the point,

Yeah, right.

OK, I'll ask it.

How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit?

[inquest]

Commerce is the means by which our society has become wealthy and obtained its possessions.

Your "logic" was shot down in Lopez.

[Mojave]

Your "logic" was shot down in Lopez.

Non sequitur.

[inquest]

You're evading the point, too. This thread is over Congress's alleged power over possession, not over commerce. If you want to start a thread about power over commerce, feel free.

[inquest]

The government could have easily argued in Lopez that since there's no way to assume that the guns brought near schools weren't purhaced from beyond state lines, or made from parts or raw materials purchased from beyond state lines, they'd come within Congress's commerce power. And they would have succeeded, too, if the court was at all inclined to buy into your specious logic.

[Mojave]

This thread is over Congress's alleged power over possession, not over commerce.

In the case of dope, the possession of illicit fungible items that are part of a major interstate black market, your pretense notwithstanding.

[inquest]

illicit

More assumption of the premise.

[Mojave]

The government could have easily argued in Lopez

The government didn't. Hypotheticals, non sequiturs, evasions.

[Mojave]

More assumption of the premise.

Non sequitur. The laws are matters of record, both at the federal and state level. The interstate black market in dope violates both.

[publiusF27]

Just like the thread title? The thread title is asking me to ignore the second amendment? Where?

Where does it bring up the 2nd amendment? It asks specifically about the commerce clause:

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

And you answered in the affirmative:

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate the interstate commerce of, among other things, guns and drugs. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate/prohibit the interstate commerce of some, not all, guns and some, not all, drugs (among other things).

[inquest]

federal

Even more assumption of the premise.