Posted on 09/07/2009 3:09:41 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
“No, federal laws against murder are not invalid, because they only apply to federal personnel and federal property under Article I Section 8.”
It doesn’t matter to whom they apply. Federal personnel are (or should be) US citizens, protected by the Constitution. If the Constitution forbids the Congress to pass laws against murder, then any murder laws it passes are unconstitutional.
Trying to trick me? After I point out that the portion you quoted is irrelevant, you pull out the “...exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever..and to exercise like authority over all places purchased....” bit?
I’m done here.
“I’m done here.”
Please. You’re never done.
The international drug cartels and the crooked politicians and officials must just love folks like you, doing the hard work of justifying immoral laws so that they can continue to profit.
Only a fool would believe that the current drug laws are not the creation of these swine and the useful idiots they recruit.
That you are happy to be their mouthpiece says something very unflattering about you.
I think you're unclear on the underlying principle here.
The Constitution does not forbid the Congress to pass laws against murder, it forbids Congress to pass laws outside of Congressional jurisdiction, including murder laws.
In the same manner as the Congress can't pass laws to forbid murder in China, it can't pass laws to forbid murder in downtown Tewksbury, Massachusetts. (Unless it involves federal employees, soldiers, or some other nexus to federal jurisdiction.)
Notice in 18 USC 1111 et seq, for example, that the law covers murder OF US citizens BY US citizens on foreign soil, for example, but NOT murder of US citizens by foreign citizens on foreign soil.
Does that help clarify the issue?
Trick? What trick? I was going under the assumption that you had actually read the Constitution, since you're trying to argue that criminalizing possession of certain plants or plant products is within the power of Congress as defined by the Constitution.
It's no "trick" to "pull out" something that's been right there in black and white for 222 years this coming Thursday.
Happy early Constitution Day!
The quote from Hobbes said the same thing...
The quote from Hobbes said the same thing...
"These bonds, in their own nature but weak, may nevertheless be made to hold, by the danger, though not by the difficulty of breaking them."
“Trick? What trick? I was going under the assumption that you had actually read the Constitution”
At my age, and with my health problems, I can no longer call forth every detail from memory. I have to refer to the written document.
Jeez, I haven’t felt this slimed since the last time I accidentally argued with a leftard. I need a shower.
You apparently can call forth enough detail to forcefully assert that the Constitution’s grant of power to Congress encompasses the power to criminalize the possession of certain kinds of plants and plant products, even though it doesn’t encompass the power to criminalize murder in most places in the country.
dsc: Sorry, not going to go down that rabbit hole with you.
Me: I was pretty sure you would duck that question. You can't answer "yes", because you would then be endorsing the constitutional legitimacy of ObamaCare and Cap & Trade under the Commerce Clause.
You can't very well answer "no" either. You would then be forced to admit that you support a fedgov policy that depends on Wickard.
So you run from the question, thus displaying flagrant intellectual cowardice.
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.