Posted on 03/15/2015 4:01:52 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If its regulation is not granted to the feds by the Constitution, by Constitutionalist thinking of course it should be legal at the federal level.
Even today's Congress, pathetic as it is, is capable of considering more than one bill at a time.
I know that Justice Thomas is supposed to be one of the good guys. But with all due respect to Justice Thomas, why did he make such a statement? Is Yale indoctrinating law students with PC interpretations of the Constitution like Harvard is?
Before Constitution-ignoring, Harvard graduate FDR had “nuked” the Supreme Court with activist justices, these thug justices wrongly deciding Wickard v. Filburn in corrupt Congress’s favor imo, constitutional authorities had clarified that Congress’s Commerce Clause power does not apply to intrastate commerce which includes agricultural production.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively [emphases added] with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce including intrastate agricultural production in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Nuke Weapons, Bacterial agents, deadly Chemicals, Explosives, Toxins, Fissile material, and so forth. It's just astonishing that the founders didn't make explicit listings of all these different things that the Fed Gov has no authority to regulate.
If you don't see a difference between using the Constitution internationally, and nationally, that is your blind spot.
I'm just extrapolating based on your statement that they don't have any authority to regulate such things. But i'm getting mixed thinking from you. You seem to be implying that the feds *DO* have authority to regulate this stuff if it is international in nature, yet following your other statement about nothing being written allowing them to regulate such things, it would seem that nothing written would also apply to International trafficking.
So If you believe the Fed Gov DOES have the authority to regulate this stuff so long as it is international in origin, I have to wonder from whence in the constitution do you see this authority?
Personally, after looking at your home page, I expect you are no friend of freedom or the Constitution. You just seem to like to argue.
Yes, not letting you get away with repeating that Libertarian talking point means I like to argue. I suppose you think that when people say something objectionable, non argumentative people will just shut up and let them get away with it?
Dealing with outside attacks from another country are a different kettle of fish. You know that, but want to obfuscate the issue with meaningless comparison of apples and oranges.
Congress has NO authority to regulate trade that occurs within a State.
/johnny
They did, in the negative. They listed ONLY the things the federal government was to regulate. Don't like it, don't trash the Constitution, change it.
States have laws against all those things, including drugs, and the Fed not only has no authority, it is needless, and grows federal government.
I want to see the Fed Government crushed back into the constitutional box it came it.
/johnny
“You are worried about what UN thinks?”
I don’t think they are completely powerless in the world. My broader point was the hypocrisy of forging a worldwide prohibition then ignoring it.
Why do you say that about Thomas? He's made exactly the same points in cases involving the Commerce Clause. He even cited the same passage in Gibbons vs Ogden in his Lopez concurrence =>
"[i]nspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State" were but a small part "of that immense mass of legislation . . . not surrendered to a general government." Id., at 203.
Suppose there was a worldwide prohibition against assault rifles. Would you be as contemptuous of the Second Amendment as you are of the Tenth?
So I take it by this statement that you regard the transshipment of drugs from foreign countries as effectively an attack on the populace of the United States. Good, because that's how I see it as well.
But I think the Government has the authority to deal with attacks that come from inside our borders too. The salient point here is that drugs constitute an "attack" against our populace.
Congress has NO authority to regulate trade that occurs within a State.
It isn't "Trade" when it deals with dangerous and illegal banned substances.
As do I. I am not going to bother you any further this evening.
The only salient point is that this article deals with INTERNAL intrastate regulation.
The congress has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce. The State laws do that really well.
Drugs are not always an attack, and are meaningless because there is a difference in the Constitution on what can be done between the US States, and actors outside the US.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution, don't ride roughshod over it, allowing things like abortion at the federal level.
I'm greatly heartened that firearms laws and abortion laws are tending back to the State, where those questions belong.
/johnny
I firmly believe in the USA and its Constitution.
I am wondering what would happen if the UN enforced the laws we insisted on, that’s all. What if they did to us what we have UN do to others, like the oil sanctions on Iraq?
I don’t think fedgov ever had the authority to declare cannabis and opium illegal, and as part of that they went and made that prohibition worldwide, so what happens when that comes around?
Did you mean to say Scalia instead of Thomas?
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"According to that dissent, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) established that Congress may control all local activities that "significantly affect interstate commerce [emphasis added]," post, at 1. And, "with the exception of one wrong turn subsequently corrected," this has been the "traditiona[l]" method of interpreting the Commerce Clause.” — United States v. Lopez, 1995.
Again, what am I overlooking?
I’m sorry if I offended you concerning Thomas.
Regardless that Thomas and Scalia are supposedly the “good guys” on the Supreme Court, their imprecise references to the Constitution and case opinions is undoubtedly not helping low-information voters get up to speed with the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
The problem with judges and justices saying merely that a given issue is “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” for example, is that low-information voters are going to take their word for it regardless of what the Constitution actually indicates about an issue.
Would you be wringing your hands over the UN if this were a prohibition on assault rifles we were talking about?
Of the two, Thomas is more likely to properly address the Constitutional issues with an eye to original intent.
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.