“’Scuse me, but since their IS NO Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate or prohibit ‘drugs’ of any kind.....”
My response dealt with just how far that “IS NO” extended in your opinion.
“And no, it is NOT Constitutional for the feds to regulate anything that crosses the border. They have only a concurrent jurisdiction with the state to collect taxes at the points of entry.”
The states, the federal government and the courts disagree with you and that is the reality we live with. Visas, passports and tariffs are regulations on the border and accepted as constitutional by the courts.
Thanks for the Sam Adams quote. I'm part of the “public” as was Sam. And like him I have to obey laws I may not agree with.
“’ I'll play along and assume from your reply that indeed you do not care about the Constitution.”
I can quote too, if not verbatim, ‘The Constitution is not a suicide pact’.
No, your response was to dodge an assertion by asking questions instead of offering a rebuttal.
----
Visas, passports and tariffs are regulations on the border and accepted as constitutional by the courts.
Ah. Now you jump from items to 'persons'.
Well, at least you're consistent....
------
I can quote too, if not verbatim, ‘The Constitution is not a suicide pact’.
You're correct, it is not.
It is a treaty between the States for the creation of an administrative organ with a few specified powers.
So again I ask-
Please show me the Constitutional authority possessed by the federal government to regulate or prohibit 'drugs'.
-----
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry