Hey, what's that supposed to mean?
Posted on 09/05/2006 8:16:10 AM PDT by tang0r
Generally, there are two types of marijuana users. First is the most commonly stereotyped “stoner,” depicted in the media of movies (e.g. Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and television (e.g. Shaggy from Scooby Doo). These are the dead-end job, ambitionless abusers who ingest marijuana to escape their already dismal lives. They represent the image which is most often associated with marijuana use. Certainly, the average American high school is teeming with similar directionless pot-smoking losers, further cementing this public perception.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
You're the only person I have ever seen attribute the phrase "living document" to the Constitution as meaning it can be changed by amendment.
Now, if you mean "living document" in some other sense, you'd better get a whole lot more specific as to what you mean and who said it. 'Cause I never did.
I mean "living document" in the same sense that FDR did when he demanded the the USSC interpret it by that standard, and the same sense that they then applied to it to produce the "substantial effects" doctrine.
If drugs (or just marijuana) are to be legalized, that's really the only way to go. First, you'd have to take the power away from the federal government. Second, you'd have to give each state, and the citizens of each state, the opportunity to speak out. The reason being that their "dry" state may end up being next to a "wet" state and they're going to have to deal with that themselves (with the federal government being out of the picture).
Some states -- Nevada, New Jersey, California -- may legalize all drugs. Some just soft drugs. Some just marijuana. Some will keep all drugs illegal. I don't think we'll see the consistency that we have with alcohol.
And therein lies the problem. The smuggling of drugs from legal to illegal states. Which is why it won't work. Which is why I'd never vote for the amendment.
The fact is they have the constitutional power to do so, so say the courts. I would hope that you agree with that basic fact.
Second fact: The courts violated the constitution. Congress is charged with creating laws in accordance to the constitution. Congress makes the laws, not the courts. When the court determines the laws it's called legislating from the bench and violates the constitution.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate tariffs between the sates regarding interstate commerce. The founders didn't want states placing excessive tariffs on goods and services entering their state which could be used as protectionism for intrastate produced goods and services. The original intent of the Commerce Clause is to regulate, not prohibit. Two very different actions.
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following in Lopez:
"Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8."
"LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums, but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."
"After making more than two-thousand presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs--legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth. After we talk with them, only 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and an astounding 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same." About LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
That's arguable, but let's skip it. Who says drug possession must pose a threat to others before it can be regulated? Not our constitution, that's for sure.
As a matter of fact, you can't name one society or one government throughout history that limited their laws only to behavior that posed a threat to others.
So, where did you get your "threat" standard? Just making it up?
"Who me? I don't support no "living document" Constitution, I just go by what the Court said. How did the Court arrive at that decision? Hey, look over there!"
That's arguable, but let's skip it... Not our constitution, that's for sure.
That's arguable, but let's skip it. ;-)
As a matter of fact, you can't name one society or one government throughout history that limited their laws only to behavior that posed a threat to others.
I can give a long list of firsts that laws, business practices, scientific utilizations and societal changes have progressed from the non-existence of to existence of. Your argument or point or whatever your intention was is irrelevant. No surprise there.
So, where did you get your "threat" standard? Just making it up?
Reason, logic and Thomas Jefferson. But you already know that as I have explained it to you before.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't perfect -- nobody is. But he was spot on target with this: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.
No. When the court rewrites the law and orders remedial action, that's called "legislating from the bench". When the court determines if a law is constitutional, it's called "doing their job".
"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate tariffs between the sates regarding interstate commerce."
So? What is important is the original meaning, not the original intent. The original intent of the hammer was to pound nails -- does that mean it cannot be used for any other purpose?
The original meaning of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce among the several states. At least, that's what is says. It says nothing about being limited to regulating tariffs between states.
"The original intent of the Commerce Clause is to regulate, not prohibit"
No. The original use of the Commerce Clause was to remove barriers to commerce among the states. It was used later to prohibit commerce among the states. Both actions are allowed under the definition of "to regulate".
President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used both actions when "regulating" commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes.
"Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
-- Justice Scalia in Gonzales v Raich
Damn! Too bad Jefferson wasn't able to convince the other Founding Fathers of his reason and logic. If he did, you might have had a point. As it is, you have nothing.
Well, you do have that one-line quote. Out of context. Which means we don't know what he was talking about.
Unless, of course, you can reference the entire text and post it. Lacking that, the quote is worthless.
Hey, what's that supposed to mean?
The original use of the Commerce Clause was to remove barriers to commerce among the states. It was used later to prohibit commerce among the states. Both actions are allowed under the definition of "to regulate".
The original intent and meaning of the CC was to regulate which doesn't mean nor intend to prohibit. You are as wrong as congress and the courts when you misinterpret the original intent and meaning of the CC. Y'all abide the ideology that the constitution is a Living Document
Pot laws are completely ineffective at their stated task. There isn't a high school kid in the country who couldn't get a bag of pot by the end of the week if they so chose (and just about half of them will choose before they graduate.) Enforcement is inconsistent and in many cases marginal to the point of virtual nonexistance.
An illogical, malum prohibitum law criminalizing victimless behavior which occasionally ruins someone's day but is otherwise broken without consequence by millions of Americans every day. If that isn't a BS law, what is?
That the occasional unlucky doper goes to jail for a couple weekends or loses his job doesn't make these laws serious, it just makes the system out to be capriciously cruel as well as just stupid. Laws like this are why many people don't respect any law.
We only arrest a very small fraction of people who break the speed limit, yet you wouldn't suggest that speed limits are BS. Or would you?
Speed limits are a broader topic than personal use of one soft drug. Some speed limit laws are BS, just as some drug laws are BS.
You should immediately turn yourself in to the local autorities and begin serving your sentence for violating the law.
Too bad Jefferson wasn't able to convince the other Founding Fathers of his reason and logic. If he did, you might have had a point.
Apparently the founders knew as well as Jefferson and thus didn't include the power for government to prohibit any object but only to regulate interstate commerce.
Unless, of course, you can reference the entire text and post it. Lacking that, the quote is worthless.
You just love to frame the debate to suit your constitution-is-a-living-document ideology.
I've asked you several times to explain how drugs in a person's home harms you. Not aspirin, valium or other over the counter or prescribed drugs, though those too can be abused, but how illicit drug possession harms you. To no avail. You can't explain because you haven't been harmed. When you do respond it's typically your authoritarian and/or communitarian twisted logic and perversion of honest justice.
Says who? Given the potential ambiguity of many words in the English language how do you determine the orignial meaning they were meant to convey without relying on intent to provide the proper context?
The original intent of the hammer was to pound nails -- does that mean it cannot be used for any other purpose?
You don't own or use tools much, and haven't ever had to rely on them for you livelihood, have you?
The original intent of hammers, the first amendment and second amendment can now mean anything and be used for anything. Albeit, with varying effectiveness.
Maybe. If you follow RP's favorite example (using a claw hammer to pound on a rust muffler) you may well find that not only were you unable to remove the muffler, but that your hammer is now unfit to pound or pull nails, either.
-- my question would be "What in the Constitution gives the government the power to ban them?"
Socialists claim that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to prohibit the interstate commerce of drugs, even though the only word used in the Constitution is "regulate".
Socialists also claim the courts have the power to say congress has the Constitutional power to prohibit commerce in drugs, despite the clear requirement of the 18th amendment to prohibit commerce in booze.
Congress has made 'findings' that in-state growing, possession, and distribution of marijuana has a substantial effect on socalled 'interstate regulatory efforts'. So they passed unconstitutional laws prohibiting that activity, and got the courts to agree that regulating is not prohibiting, that it is more akin to regulating traffic. -- An inept analogy.
Well done. -- If only I could say the same.
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.