Replies

I have wasted my time giving you chance after chance to admit that the federal government has a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws.

I've already agreed that this is true. (Free clue: I'm not Ken H nor BCrago66.)

You'll have to forgive me, but I didn't really catch that you were admitting that there are a myriad of laws on our books that are similar to the government's drug laws. It seemed to me that you were quite careful not to go there. It seemed as if you were trying to stick to Commerce Clause and other areas of the Constitution. If I did in fact miss it, then it wasn't intentional.

I do believe it is fair to challenge these laws on the basis you're trying to. I'm just not an easy roll-over for folks who want to challenge our drug laws.

I do realize there are different ways to address this issue, and different peole using different methods here. Not knowing some people, it's rather easy for me to lump everyone into one basked until I can determine the exact mindset, tactics, and goals sought.

These laws are widely accepted without objection.

I don't accept them without objection. I'm aware of no evidence that many FReepers accept them without objection. Do you think it's a conservative argument to say that unconstitutional laws are OK if they're "widely accepted without objection"?

Okay, you don't.

No, but I don't see FReepers making endless lists of laws they think should be struck down either. I do see some. On a case by case basis, I'm sure there are many they would like to see struck down.

If hard pressed though, I think they would be surpirsed at some of the things they might like to see remain in place too. And when you get that one thing you want to remain in place, you've just validated the practice of any of these laws existing at all. You're going to disagree with that on Constitutional grounds. In the real world, it essentially does. Until they are challenged on the Constitutionality point, they are graced in as Constitutional.

What's the solution to this? Is it to strike down all federal statutes of this nature? Some people might agree to it. If you made a list of 100 to 500 things they might want to remain in place, you'd find a lot of people scratching their heads too.

No, I don't think it's a Conservative argument to back unconstitutional laws. As an attorney though, you've argued enough cases to know that your interpretation isn't the only interpretation.

Even Conservatives disagree about certain aspects of the U. S. Constitution. I don't believe the 14th Amendment guarantees U. S. Citizenship to the children born to illegal immigrants on U. S. Soil. Others do. At the present time it's a fate accompli.

So when it comes to our laws concerning drugs, I do think it's open to interpretation whether they are Constitutional or not. You may very well be right, but in their inception, they were graced in.

Until someone makes a sound enough case to shoot that premise down that they are Constitutional, they will remain on the books. Of course those laws could also be repealed if our elected officials adopted the mindset of those who think the War on Drugs causes far more problems than it solves.

Thank you for your comments.

Even Conservatives disagree about certain aspects of the U. S. Constitution. [...] So when it comes to our laws concerning drugs, I do think it's open to interpretation whether they are Constitutional or not.

I have yet to see a conservative interpretation that supports federal laws on intrastate drug matters. (It's in no way conservative to support the FDR court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effects" test - which gave us the vast majority of today's federal welfare state.)

Until someone makes a sound enough case to shoot that premise down that they are Constitutional, they will remain on the books.

Of course - my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.