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]

The government didn't.

Becasue they knew exactly what a loser argument it would have been.

[Mojave]

assumption of the premise.

False. Matters of record.

[robertpaulsen]

I thought you were limiting the discussion to the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with possession -- it's limited to interstate commerce.

[Mojave]

they knew exactly what a loser argument

Begging the question, arguing a non sequitur and evading the question all at the same time.

How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit?

[robertpaulsen]

You don't know.

[inquest]

The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with possession

Good. Glad we've established that.

[robertpaulsen]

He doesn't know. But that doesn't stop him from putting down someone who admits they don't know either.

One thing worse than a hypocrite -- a condescending hypocrite.

[robertpaulsen]

The Necessary and Proper Clause does.

[publiusF27]

The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with possession -- it's limited to interstate commerce.

LOL! OK, someone alert the moderators. Clearly, someone else has hijacked RP's screen name.

[inquest]

Begging the question, arguing a non sequitur and evading the question all at the same time.

You're sputtering like mad. If there was any basis at all to your "logic", the government would have used it in Lopez. It's not like you have such a brilliant legal mind as to be able to come up with sublime legal reasoning that would never occur to them.

I doubt you could find a single legal authority anywhere that would argue that the fact that an item had once traveled in interstate commerce makes it any more subject to regulation under the commerce clause, than if it had been made from scratch without crossing state lines.

[publiusF27]

I doubt you could find a single legal authority anywhere that would argue that the fact that an item had once traveled in interstate commerce makes it any more subject to regulation under the commerce clause, than if it had been made from scratch without crossing state lines.

922 (q) (the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996) makes that argument, and is the law of the land.

[inquest]

The Necessary and Proper Clause does.

So prior to the passage of the second amendment, it appears to me that there's nothing to suggest that Congress's commerce power (necessary, proper, and all that) over guns was any different than its commerce power over drugs. I was just seeing if you shared that perception.

Helps in determining original meaning, don'cha know.

[inquest]

When I said "legal authority", I meant courts, legal commentators, etc. Politicians playing to a gun-grabbing constituency falls a bit short of that standard.

[don asmussen]

paulsen:

So the Commerce Clause doesn't allow Congress to prohibit the interstate commerce of guns? Or prohibit the commerce of guns with the Indian tribes? Or prohibit the commerce of guns with foreign nations?

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate the commerce of guns with the Indian tribes; --- or to regulate the commerce of guns with foreign nations, both of which may be in conflict with the United States.

-- Congress does not however have the power to regulate the commerce of guns among the several States, nor to prohibit commerce among them, as the several States are not in conflict with the United States.

It is ludicrous to believe that the government of the United States is empowered by the Constitution to wage a prohibitive commerce 'war' on its own States or its own citizens.

[Mojave]

You're sputtering like mad.

Huh.

How much interstate commerce can Congress prohibit?

[Mojave]

He doesn't know.

And he doesn't care. It's all a smokescreen for legalizing dope,

[don asmussen]

It is ludicrous to believe that the government of the United States is empowered by the Constitution to wage a prohibitive commerce 'war' on its own States or its own citizens.


This issue was previously debated, and effectively resolved back here:


Replies
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/1515174/replies?c=2376


Feel free to re-address the points made in the post above, seeing you couldn't do so at the time.

[inquest]

And he doesn't care.

Not for the purposes of this tread, anyway, because this thread is about Congress's alleged power over possession, not its power over commerce.

It's all a smokescreen for legalizing dope

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]

If you make a condescending remark to cover for your ignorance, don't whine when you get a condescending reply highlighting it.

[Mojave]

this thread is about Congress's alleged power over possession, not its power over commerce.

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