Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ken H
Uh, no. It is a matter of case law.

Yes it is, and that is exactly why it is a matter of convenience. Were it not case law, it wouldn't be convenient.

IOW, they're whores who love the Drug War more than the Constitution.

Yes, the Roosevelt appointees were whores to big government dominance and they didn't particularly love the drug war per se, they just loved the idea of Federal dominance.

The drug war itself is perfectly constitutional because drugs represent an existential threat to this nation. (Therefore authorized under the defense clause) We have a right and a duty to fight these attacks on our nation and our society.

44 posted on 12/27/2014 5:48:44 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Yes it is, and that is exactly why it is a matter of convenience. Were it not case law, it wouldn't be convenient.

You make my point. It illustrates that prohibitionist don't care about the original Constitution. They'll use whatever is convenient to carry out their agenda.

The drug war itself is perfectly constitutional because drugs represent an existential threat to this nation. (Therefore authorized under the defense clause)

No, it is not authorized under the 'defense clause'. Congress has not claimed such and the Courts have never ruled that way. If you support fedgov control over intrastate marijuana regulation, you support Wickard.

51 posted on 12/27/2014 6:29:46 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson