Replies

And if we the people don't like what Congress is doing with the Commerce Clause, we have the opportunity every two years to start over.

I never said stretching the commerce clause beyond all reasonable bounds was not popular, I just said it was (is) not Constitutional in the sense of being far beyond the intention of Madison.

What are we to do, however, with an arrogant court who believes that the 1st amendment does not allow political speech and that eminent domain allows private businesses to force citizens to sell their property?

Didn't you just say that if a spineless court rolls over and lets Congress do whatever Congress wants with the commerce power, that's really not a problem because we can elect a new Congress?

OK, if a spineless court wants to allow Congress to decide upon "reasonable" restrictions on the first amendment, and wants to allow legislators max discretion in determining the meaning of "public use," why are you not in those cases inclined to say that the Court should not reel them in, the politicians themselves should restrain themselves in response to public pressure?

Meanwhile, you've still said nothing to convince me that the practice of medicine in Oregon or California must inevitably spread and influence commerce across state lines. I still see those things as things Madison would say are among the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. I believe that if he knew we would one day be arguing over whether a homegrown cannabis plant or machine gun for personal consumption was interstate commerce, he would have entertained a few more apprehensions about that new power.

"in the sense of being far beyond the intention of Madison."

Madison's intention?

Do you think it was Madison's intention to let each state regulate airline traffic within the state such that they flew at their own state-designated altitudes, on their own frequencies, their own traffic patterns ... despite the fact that the federal government was regulating interstate airline traffic? Ditto for the assignment of TV, radio, cellular, and other frequencies?

Please. Convince me that this would encourage commerce and be good for the country. I could use a good laugh.

You got this bug up your butt about drugs, and you want to twist and distort the constitution, throwing the country under the bus, just to legalize them. What's up with that?

"Didn't you just say that if a spineless court rolls over and lets Congress do whatever Congress wants with the commerce power, that's really not a problem because we can elect a new Congress?"

There's enough blame to go around. Congress had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade, sodomy, or eminent domain. And in the case of CFR, they and the USSC are equally culpable.

"I still see those things as things Madison would say are among the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

They are, absent any federal legislation that would supercede it.

"I believe that if he knew we would one day be arguing over whether a homegrown cannabis plant or machine gun for personal consumption was interstate commerce, he would have entertained a few more apprehensions about that new power"

They're NOT interstate commerce. Growing and possessing a cannabis plant has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating. There is a Congressional finding to this effect, and is contained within the legislation. Since it has a substantial effect, Congress may legislate growing and possessing a cannabis plant.

Now, if you truly believe that millions of people across the United states growing cannabis would have no effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts, then you're speaking from an agenda and not common sense and there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

So I won't even bother to try.