“it is not unusual for the federal government...”
So your argument is that, if it’s not unusual for the federal government to violate the Constitution, then it is perfectly okay?
“If one state legalizes drugs, it an effective legalization for anyone in nearby states.”
That would mean that counties which allow alcohol are effectively legalizing it for anyone in the dry counties? So, the solution to that would be what, Federal prohibition so that the dry counties have no issues to deal with? Do you even try to conceive of the holes in your arguments before you post them?
I don’t agree with everything that is farmed in under the Commerce Clause, but it’s impossible to be in violation of the Constitution if that clause exists there and the interpretation is incorrectly applied.
You argument fails. If you wish to see the amendment containing the clause repealed, I think that’s a reasoned goal. I do think there are some reasoned issues that can be covered under the clause. I don’t like seeing it abused.
LOL, you follow the logic trail quite well, recognize the problem and then tell me I’m the one who is mistaken.
I do not agree with you here. Sorry.