And I'm pretty sure they would have thought that transshipping dangerous narcotics across the border to hurt or injure our citizens would be considered a criminal act if done by individuals, and an act of war if done by a nation state.
That is axiomatic. You just don't like it because it disables your "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DRUGS!!!! assertion."
_________________________________________________________________
You just flat out lied. He said Congress had such authority in Post #130 =>
That's in the Commerce Clause. The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations covers anything coming across the border.
____________________________________________________________________
So are you going to retract your falsehood?
No, you are just ignorant of the context and prior conversation. I have said all along that the current legal system cites the "commerce clause" I have pointed out that they do so because it is convenient for them to do so, but legitimate authority comes from the Defense clause, but no one bothers to assert this because thanks to Wickard v Filburn, they don't have to.
So are you going to retract your falsehood?
It's not a falsehood, the fault for thinking it so is yours.
If you had been paying attention to the whole conversation, you would have known that.