Skip to comments.
Discussion on the intent of the Commerce Clause
Dec 25, 2009
| Jim Robinson
Posted on 12/25/2009 1:56:41 PM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 261-264 next last
To: publiusF27
Of course I addressed it, noting it depends on Wickard It doesn't. My argument, my words, your silence.
201
posted on
12/27/2009 5:54:05 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: TigersEye
When something enters commerce it is easy to track. And the government just needs to transmit that information to themselves in the past so that they can know which growers will wind up selling pot and which ones will only use it themselves.
Still preposterous.
202
posted on
12/27/2009 5:59:09 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
So you still think that because the word aggregation does not appear in the Wickard decision, it must have nothing to do with the case?
Couldn’t find RP, huh? Too bad. I used to learn stuff from him, and occasionally from you, but not this time. Oh well, see ya next year when the Chicago case comes down.
To: publiusF27
Still no answer to my posted argument.
204
posted on
12/27/2009 6:25:06 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
Marijuana is illegal to sell so it is preposterous to consider it any part of commerce in any case.
Almost as preposterous as this statement...
"The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself substantially affect interstate commerce."
Complete gobbledygook. It sounds like a line from Alice in Wonderland.
205
posted on
12/28/2009 12:27:41 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: TigersEye
Marijuana is illegal to sell so it is preposterous to consider it any part of commerce in any case.Thanks for the non sequitur.
206
posted on
12/29/2009 6:31:09 AM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
Not even considering your mixing of ‘60s hippie-speak and ‘80s slacker-speak your grasp of English is awful.
207
posted on
12/29/2009 12:25:06 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: TigersEye
Uh huh.
commerce
noun: trade, business, traffic, market, trading
Commerce is the activities and procedures involved in buying and selling things.
208
posted on
12/29/2009 3:25:12 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
Amazing! Only an illiterate would conflate the black market with legitimate commerce based on a dictionary definition and consider it subject to regulation. That's on a par with equating enemy combatants with ordinary criminals.
Did you go to school with Janet Napolireno?
209
posted on
12/29/2009 4:08:04 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: TigersEye
Only an illiterate would conflate the black market with legitimate commerce Only an idiot would move the goalpost and not expect to be caught. Let's review:
Marijuana is illegal to sell so it is preposterous to consider it any part of commerce in any case.
"Any part of commerce is any case" was furtively transformed into "legitimate commerce."
Pathetic.
And the suggestion that Congress may not attempt control commerce which is illegal is, as before, preposterous.
210
posted on
12/29/2009 4:39:14 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
LOLOL Pathetic logic to be sure.
211
posted on
12/29/2009 4:54:34 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: centurion316
ever since Americans have suffered under the yoke of Democrats who believe they can do as they damned well please. Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942)...and republicans. Remember, it was Justice Scalia who relied on Wickard v. Filburn to uphold the federal ban on medical marijuana that was never sold and never left California.
To: centurion316
ever since Americans have suffered under the yoke of Democrats who believe they can do as they damned well please. Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942)...and Republicans. Remember, it was Justice Scalia who relied on Wickard v. Filburn to uphold the federal ban on medical marijuana that was never sold and never left California.
To: TigersEye
There's nothing about Congress only being able to regulate "legitimate" trade in the Commerce Clause. You leftists do love to treat the Constitution as a "living document" full of emanations from penumbras of your own invention.
Too bad you weren't there at the Constitutional Convention to tell the Framers that criminals enjoyed an immunity from Congressional authority when contraband goods were involved. I'm sure they would have been fascinated.
214
posted on
12/29/2009 5:09:58 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
Before you can start to lecture on the Constitution you need to study English a little more. Your semantic parsing goes far beyond the hubris of the Clintons when you try to fit an activity that is outlawed in its entirety into definitions of "regulation of commerce."
When it comes to idiots no one is going to take a back seat to you.
Not since robertpaulsen left us anyway.
215
posted on
12/29/2009 5:17:58 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: TigersEye
Zero signal to noise. Impressive.
The power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause is not limited to “legitimate commerce.” Contraband is not beyond the reach of Congress, no matter how often you assert that preposterous proposition.
216
posted on
12/29/2009 5:31:53 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
The power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause is not limited to legitimate commerce.Not for a liberal/Progressive/commie who believes in the "living breathing Constitution."
217
posted on
12/29/2009 5:48:52 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: TigersEye
That darn Thomas Jefferson. Prohibiting whiskey sales to Indians, barring imports from Europe.
Lucky for the smugglers that they could just tell any federal agents that they weren't carrying "legitimate" items of commerce, so Congress had no authority over them.
218
posted on
12/29/2009 6:01:40 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
To: Mojave
Whiskey wasn’t outlawed completely was it? Another catastrophic failure of logic for you. lol
219
posted on
12/29/2009 6:14:33 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Tar & feathers! Pitchforks and torches! ... Get some while supplies last.)
To: TigersEye
Whiskey wasnt outlawed completely was it? Drug sales aren't outlawed completely. Nice foot shot.
Apparently the word "legitimate" means whatever you want it to mean at any given moment.
220
posted on
12/29/2009 6:30:34 PM PST
by
Mojave
(Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 261-264 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson