Your question was answered. Do you have another? And when will you FINALLY answer the question that's been repeatedly asked of you: Would you tell us which section of the Constitution you believe delegates to Congress the authority to regulate intrastate drug policies?
There are thousands of federal regulations and statutes.
What you folks seem to be trying to argue, is that the federal government has devised no other laws.
Um, no, that's a swing and a miss by you. What Ken and I are suggesting is that federal laws governing intrastate drug matters are not authorized by the Constitution - hence the question you keep evading: Would you tell us which section of the Constitution you believe delegates to Congress the authority to regulate intrastate drug policies?
(Now, of the many other laws passed by Congress, it is true that a large number are also not authorized by the Constitution; as conservatives, we should oppose all such laws.)
No, actually it wasn’t answered.
You’re evading. It’s not working.
If you don’t want to be honest about this, that’s okay.
Ok, I'll help them out.
The same section that allows the Supreme Court to make up new laws, as they did in Roe v. Wade, and to and the same section from whence they can justify the absence of a market that would be commerce if it existed (Raich) to impact, in some manner the supply or demand int the state which in turn impacts the national [interstate] market and therefore is a matter of interstate commerce (Wickarc).
The little known Article π, Section √e (otherwise known as the Black-Robed God-King Clause)
The supreme court shall have jurisdiction over all laws and the Constitution and may alter or abolish this document at will.
NOW BOW BEFORE US PEASANTS! BOW AND STAND IN AWE AT OUR BRILLIANCE!