[davidjquackenbush]

Sorry if you have already pointed out most of DiLorenzo's fallacies, errors of fact, and baseless assertions in this article. I just found this thread, and haven't the time right now to read it. I just want to point out that this:

For example, in Keyes’s article he bases his argument in support of federal drug regulation on the equality principle of the Declaration.

is typical DiLorenzo incapacity to read. The article by Keyes has no defense of the Constitutionality of federal drug regulation law. It is about the propriety of the Attorney General basing his obligatory interpretation of existing federal law (unless we want him to simply pass his own judgment on the constitutionality of each federal law) on state referenda or on some more national principle, particularly when the verdict of the state referendum contradicts the most fundamental principle of federal law. Keyes' opinion on the constitutionality of federal drug law is simply absent from this article.

There are plenty of other, more obvious, errors in the article. But seeing this one depends on having read the Keyes article -- because as usual you can't trust DiLorenzo to honestly report the views of those he disagrees with.

[tpaine]

You say:

" ---- the verdict of the state referendum contradicts the most fundamental principle of federal law."

The Oregon assisted suicide referendum contradicts the most fundamental principle of which federal law? -- And, - is this same law based on any constitutional fundamentals?