Posted on 01/04/2012 1:16:42 PM PST by La Enchiladita
Sarah Palin said she wasn't surprised at Rick Santorum's success in Iowa, and warned that the GOP should not take Ron Paul's supporters lightly.
Speaking on Fox News before Iowa's final numbers were in, she called Santorum "spot-on" with his policies toward Iran and praised his "social conservative" positions.
Her strongest comments came for Paul, however, saying "the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after this" because "a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke" and Paul has reached that constituency well. She warned that the GOP "better work with them."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to ban drugs.
If it weren’t, every anti American ACLU and Pot Head with a law degree would have banded together and went to the Supreme Court.
Please explain to me, if Unconstitutional, why this hasn’t happened?
In the face of liberal FDR's court-packing threat, the Supreme Court overthrew decades of precedent (and the plain meaning of the Constitution) and decreed that anything that had "substantial impact" on interstate commerce was subject to federal authority. The vast majority of the liberal federal Leviathan we endure today is, like federal drug laws, based on this perversion of the Constitution.
Glad I could help.
If that helps you believe that bunk...enjoy.
It all comes down to a false belief system that “everybody else is wrong”...and the crazy Paul is right.
Dream on. Stating that drug laws are unconstitutional is just simply nuttiness.
Stating that drug laws are unconstitutional is just simply nuttiness.
That makes Justice Clarence Thomas "nutty": "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power." - GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005), dissenting
That Court case is more about proper restrictions on the Commerce Clause.
It has no effect on state or federal laws regarding illegal drugs. It also reinforces that illegal drugs that are being sold, and not for private use, but for sale and distribution, are properly held in the Commerce Clause.
That supports my argument that legislature are properly and constitutionally correct in legislating some drugs are illegal.
It has no effect on state or federal laws regarding illegal drugs.
Nonsense. The federal claim for authority to ban drugs rests on the Commerce Clause.
It also reinforces that illegal drugs that are being sold, and not for private use, but for sale and distribution, are properly held in the Commerce Clause.
Only interstate sale/distribution.
That supports my argument that legislature are properly and constitutionally correct in legislating some drugs are illegal.
The federal legislature has Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce in drugs - not activities that are not interstate or not commerce.
Screw Ron Paul and his band of merry men.
Hey Paulist....Thomas’ opinion was a minority dissenting opinion.
Even his opinion didn’t challenge Federal or State drug laws.
You don’t have a clue and State and Federal Drug laws remain.
So is he, in your words, "nutty"?
Federal Drug laws remain.
That's not the question - the question is whether they're Constitutional. (Don't tell me you think the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says that it says? Do you think that about, say, Roe v Wade or Lawrence v Texas?)
“So is he(Thomas), in your words, “nutty”?”
No. His opinion has nothing to do with and does not support your opinion, which along with RonPaul, is nutty. I’ve explained the distinction above on what Thomas’ dissenting opinion pertains to.
(Federal Drug laws remain.)
“That’s not the question - the question is whether they’re Constitutional.”
Yes. Our State and Federal Drug Laws are constitutional.
This is true, despite Ron Paul’s 6th grade bubble gum prize constitutional analysis.
Being the next governor is like saying that Obama was/is “Bush mk. II” because he was the next President.
I rebutted that alleged distinction - "The federal claim for authority to ban drugs rests on the Commerce Clause" - and you haven't addressed that rebuttal.
Federal Drug Laws are constitutional.
So you keep claiming, with no argument but an attempt to sweep under the carpet Justice Thomas' analysis: "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."
Like most RuPaulians you simply repeat yourselves.
Everything you just repeated was refuted in earlier posts.
Stick to the cult of Paul, where ignorance is unchallenged.
...and try not getting caught toking or you’ll get a life lesson in the Constitution...lol.
A brief slow mo for you
1)Thomas’ opinion was on the losing side.
2) Thomas’ rationale affirms the Commerce clause in general, while disputing only a specific and small exception as described by Thomas.
Banning harmful drugs is absolutely Constitutional. If it weren’t, every anti American ACLU and Pot Head with a law degree would have banded together and went to the Supreme Court.
No, they would only do that if that move served their ends, and it doesn't. Our president, for instance, loves the power he has in his office. He and the rest of the Left, including the ACLU, have no interest in limited government. The Constitution is the enemy of the Left and they do not want to be restrained by it. Just ask yourself why, if what you say is true, the ACLU never defends people deprived of their second amendment rights? They also fail to defend the rights of the millions of people killed in abortions. By your reasoning Roe v. Wade is Constitutional and I seriously cannot imagine any conservative arguing that.
If you really believe that the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to regulate our consumption of particular substances then why, I wonder, did we have the 18th amendment? It seems strange to get an amendment to do what the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate. And, if such an amendment had to exist then where are those which cover cannabis, narcotics, or any other such substances? I don't support drug use, but I do support Constitutional restraint on the government. If we concede extra-constitutional authority in the case of drugs then there is no way to argue about other issues, such as education, guns, abortion, health care, etc.
The Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) of the United States Constitution established Prohibition in the United States. Since it took an amendment to the constitution back when the Constitution actually meant something it stands to reason that a prohibition of say pot would similarly require a constitutional amendment if we were serious about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land which we are not.
Ummm...no.
Well I did not expect you to agree with me since you do not believe in Constitutional restrains on Federal power.
Oh, I'm totally a Paul nut. Just enjoying playoff football today. Hope you're doing the same. Shaping up to be a pretty good game thusfar.
You still won't face reality.
Obama ran against Bush, and is still running against Bush. There's no way that a reasonable person would link them.
Perry was Lt. Governor alongside Bush. If you want to draw an analogy to the Oval Office, Perry is nearly in the same situation as if Dick Cheney had decided to run for President in 2012.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Perry will never be able to throw off his connection with George W. Bush. And it makes him unelectable.
Didn’t half his vote in Iowa come from non-Republicans?
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.