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
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.
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: alito; banglist; commerce; commerceclause; frpoll; herecomesmrleroy; interstate; interstatecommerce; madison; no; scotus; thatmrleroytoyou; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,761-2,780, 2,781-2,800, 2,801-2,820 ... 3,021-3,022 next last
To: robertpaulsen
When you learn the difference between "possession" and "commerce", then we can continue this discussion.
2,781
posted on
12/17/2005 10:12:11 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: robertpaulsen
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.
2,782
posted on
12/17/2005 10:14:27 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: robertpaulsen
How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit? They aren't really interested in interstate commerce, just dope. It's their smokescreen.
To: inquest
When you learn the difference between "possession" and "commerce" Commerce without possession. Trippy!
To: Mojave
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.
2,785
posted on
12/17/2005 10:32:29 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: Mojave
Possession without commerce. Not trippy.
2,786
posted on
12/17/2005 10:34:07 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
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.
To: Mojave
No answer to his simple question.Because his "simple question" was used to evade the point, as per his usual procedure.
2,788
posted on
12/17/2005 10:38:21 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
Possession without commerce.It falls from the sky? Commerce is the means by which our society has become wealthy and obtained its possessions.
To: inquest
his "simple question" was used to evade the point,Yeah, right.
OK, I'll ask it.
How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit?
To: Mojave
Commerce is the means by which our society has become wealthy and obtained its possessions.Your "logic" was shot down in Lopez.
2,791
posted on
12/17/2005 10:41:32 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
Your "logic" was shot down in Lopez. Non sequitur.
To: Mojave
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.
2,793
posted on
12/17/2005 10:42:42 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: Mojave
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.
2,794
posted on
12/17/2005 10:45:33 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
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.
To: Mojave
illicitMore assumption of the premise.
2,796
posted on
12/17/2005 10:48:10 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
The government could have easily argued in Lopez The government didn't. Hypotheticals, non sequiturs, evasions.
To: inquest
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.
To: robertpaulsen
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).
To: Mojave
federalEven more assumption of the premise.
2,800
posted on
12/17/2005 10:51:53 AM 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 ... 2,761-2,780, 2,781-2,800, 2,801-2,820 ... 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