Booby-Trapped Pot Injures Three Drug Agents

wkrn ^

[WindMinstrel]

We're talking about the Constitution here, not Federal or (even more obscurant) state laws. If we do indeed have rights that are not explicitly granted in the Constitution, how do you then determine which ones "arent' recognized as rights"?

[justshe]

It's interesting to see how many of them applaud violence against the police.

Roscoe,

NOT just violence against the police though.

ANY violence they think is justified under their perverted sense of justice and history is sought and encouraged. It is rather frightening, actually.

You or I......or ANYONE that does not toe the line on their self-actualized "justice scale" are targets for maiming or death.

They are SO convinced of the infallibility and correctness of their ideology that all become expendable to their interpretations. It is like a religion......in reverse, imo.

Damned scary.

[Roscoe]

We're talking about the Constitution here

Are drugs in the same emanation of the penumbra as abortions?

[tacticalogic]

That doesn't address the issue of the act being dependent on the New Deal Commerce Clause. You claim the authority goes back at least to 1824, yet you can't produce any such "findings" prior to 1937. Why not?

[WindMinstrel]

the prohibition of drugs is under the same penumbra that allows abortion, yes.

[Roscoe]

Bibles don't equal pornography, libertarian dogma notwithstanding.

[Poser]

I'm surprised and disgusted by some of the posts on this topic. Growing pot is illegal. Trying to kill other people is illegal.

While I wouldn't choose this as the best use of my police and National Guard, the scumbag who did it deserves many years in prison.

[Roscoe]

the prohibition of drugs is under the same penumbra that allows abortion, yes.

Thanks for the admission. Unfortunately for you, you're wrong even there.

The USSC has rejected medical neccessity arguments for pot.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Bibles don't equal pornography, libertarian dogma notwithstanding.

Excuse me?

[Roscoe]

That doesn't address the issue of the act being dependent on the New Deal Commerce Clause.

Addressed repeatedly.

Again.

(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--

(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.

[Roscoe]

Excuse me?

"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin." -- U.S. Supreme Court BROOKS v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)

[Roscoe]

NOT just violence against the police though. ANY violence they think is justified

Some things never change.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Except for firearms, name one physical object the Federal government couldn't prohibit based on your interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

[tpaine]

Libertarians/liberals/libertines draw no distinctions between the right to keep and bear arms and drug use. "Guns equal drugs" is one of Libertarianism's most absurd equations.

Not at all. They are both forms of 'property', which cannot be taken without due process. [14th] -- Our present unconstitutonal war on guns & drugs is doing exactly that.

There is no right to manufacture, transport, sell, possess or use illicit drugs in the Constitution, notwithstanding Libertarianism's "Roe v Wade" mentality about Constitutional rights.

Nor is there a power given to government to prohibit drugs or guns. -- In fact, the 14th amendment specifically mentions our rights to life, liberty, and property, without un-due process, IE -- government interference.

What is amazing here roscoe, is your advocacy of prohibitive type law. This is NOT a 'conservative' stance.
You promote a socialist agenda on a site dedicated to a free republic.

[Roscoe]

They are both forms of 'property', which cannot be taken without due process.

Wrong.

[Roscoe]

Bibles don't equal pornography, libertarian dogma notwithstanding.

[tpaine]

"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin." -- U.S. Supreme Court BROOKS v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)
_________________________________

Roscoe, if that is a true quote, in context, the justice that made it stood the constitution on its ear, and in effect, - made congress our masters.
-- Obviously his 'opinion' was ignored, and rightly so.

[tacticalogic]

And once again you try to evade the issue. Article I Section 8 says "to regulate commerce among the several states", not "to regulate anything that affects commerce among the several states". Your (and FDR's) interpretation comes down to "regulate anything" (you've yet to provide a single example of something that couldn't be regulated). If they'd meant "regulate anything" they'd have said "regulate anything".

[tpaine]

Nor is there a power given to government to prohibit drugs or guns. -- In fact, the 14th amendment specifically mentions our rights to life, liberty, and property, without un-due process, IE -- government interference.
_______________________________

--- Wrong! -- Says roscoe in a deadly display of BS pap.
You deny our constitutions clear intent. You are a socialistic fraud, not a conservative.

[Roscoe]

Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.''

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/28.html#6