Replies

“The federal government DOES NOT make the laws against murder, rape or theft for the 50 states.”

So? There are federal laws against murder, rape, and theft. And before you come back again with the jurisdiction argument, state laws are only effective within a state’s borders.

“Well, since you have stopped offering any arguments”

Yeah, it’s about time for you to start denying the existence of arguments you can’t rebut.

“and rely on the same abuse (or even more of a stretch) of the “general welfare” clause”

You make that assertion, but fail to support it. In fact, the general welfare clause covers drugs with no stretch at all. It is just the sort of thing that clause was intended to address.

“to get what you want as many leftists do, I can only conclude that you do indeed ride that commie horse.”

More groundless attacks on my character. And don’t pretend that you are concluding anything on the basis of rational thought, here.

Continue your authoritarian bull on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334012/posts

The post that if the dead pastor saved one kid from smoking a joint, it was worth it, I thought was you and serious until I saw it was someone else and sarcasm.

You make that assertion, but fail to support it. In fact, the general welfare clause covers drugs with no stretch at all. It is just the sort of thing that clause was intended to address.

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted.
- James Madison, before the House of Representatives, February 7, 1792

An admirable attempt to reason with these folks, but it’s a lost cause. Some FReepers would be happy with nothing less than total legalization of any and all drugs no matter what sort of impact that has on society around them. You see, they are responsible users, and to heck with everyone else. It’s all about their liberty to get high. I equate them with the 2nd Amendment folks who believe they should be able to own howitzers, chemical weapons, or nuclear bombs. To make matters worse, these folks attack other conservatives because we’re not pure enough. As the liberals wrap society in a cocoon of socialism, even going so far as to threaten our access to health care (!), the druggies are pissed at us that we won’t fight for their right to get high. Pathetic!

In fact, the general welfare clause covers drugs with no stretch at all. It is just the sort of thing that clause was intended to address.

Garbage. If it applies it to drugs, then it also applies to health care, the environment, and just about anything else Congress wishes to legislate. Read Walter Williams' piece on constitutional contempt and learn something:

Regarding the "general welfare" clause so often used as a justification for bigger government, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." James Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

-snip-

Congress is not alone in its constitutional contempt, but is joined by the White House and particularly the constitutionally derelict U.S. Supreme Court.

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/07/congressionalconstitutionalcontempt.htm