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.
But the people of the state would never tolerate something like that.
The state would glean information from state hunting license records, gun shop records, the records of other states and a reciprocal agreement by states to share firearm related information.
As if Wyoming would ever help Massachusetts enforce its gun-control laws? Not too likely.
Are you willing to bet your life on that? Which would you prefer, a manufacturers guarantee or a dealers service warranty? (Fed vs state)
As if Wyoming would ever help Massachusetts enforce its gun-control laws?
Probably not, but I am sure that the states of Washington, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, etc., would be more than willing to share information. If your firearm was manufactured in one of these states, your own state could get the desired information.
The point I am politely, but obliquely, trying to make is that no level of government, states in particular, can be trusted with anyones basic rights.
Are you willing to bet your life on that?
Considering that it would already be happening if the people were willing to tolerate it, the answer's pretty clear. The trick to oppressing people is not to do it in a way that makes most of them notice. The people in power already know that most people, even in liberal states, are generally favorably disposed toward gun rights, which is why even Democrat politicians (think Kerry) will pay lip service to it. It's just that they're able to keep people mostly distracted on other issues to keep them from raising too much of a stink over it. But do something like what you describe, and a lot of politicians will be out of a job permanently (at the very least).
Probably not, but I am sure that the states of Washington, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, etc., would be more than willing to share information. If your firearm was manufactured in one of these states, your own state could get the desired information.
Once a firearm is manufactured and exported to another state, the state that it came from will no longer be able to know what becomes of it. So a gun is manufactred in Oregon and then shipped to a retail outlet in Wyoming. Oregon is not going to know who bought it from the retailer.
Call Wickard whatever you want, but there is not now and will not by any plausible chain of events ever be a Supreme Court majority to overturn Wickard and readopt the commerce clause interpretation of Schecter. Claiming that it ought to happen is beside the point. In my view, we are misdirected from the goal of restraining federal power by trying to re-fight lost battles and lost causes.
The subject is much more complicated than you are willing to recognize. Read the full body of major commerce clause cases, beginning with Gibbons v. Ogden. Even Justice Thomas, whose views cannot be ignored in this context, seems uncertain just how far to go in revisiting prior commerce clause cases.
I submit that with the rule of Gibbons v. Ogden and the nature of modern commerce, something like current decisional law principles is inevitable unless some other principle in defense of state authority is contrived. For decades, that was the dual sovereignty doctrine, and I think that a revival of it is a more promising avenue than trying to overturn two centuries of commerce clause case decisions.
I think it would be rather hard for the defendant to seriously argue that the currency was intended to be given to unsuspecting people and yet not intended to cross state lines. Further, since Congress has the authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof, the fact that counterfeit money that's circulated will dilute the value of real money would suffice.
As long as that criminalization does not infringe on US constitutional rights and federal laws, I don't see any restrictions that can be imposed on the state's elected bodies.
Amen! But I think it stands to reason, and the evidence supports, that the federal government will go bad before all 50 states will.
SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld Row v Wade. What's your point?
A dubious claim at best since plaintiffs didn't challenge the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole.
I care less about what modern business prefers than what the Constitution demands ... but then, I'm a conservative.
Joe grows pot in his back yard and sells some to his next-door neighbor ... how is that not a local matter?
The answer, quite simply, is no.
In your opinion, is the "substantial effects" test consistent with the original intent of the Commerce Clause?
No 85.3% 869
Undecided/Pass 10.2% 104
Yes 4.5% 46
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.