Booby-Trapped Pot Injures Three Drug Agents

wkrn ^

[Roscoe]

To regulate is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196); "to foster, protect, control and restrain" (Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 47). One form of such regulation is prohibition. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45; United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308; Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311; Seven Cases of Eckman's Alterative v. United States, 239 U.S. 510

[Jeff Gordon]

War is hell.

[tacticalogic]

but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states,

Expanding the authority of the commerce clause to include potential commerce, rather than limited to actual commerce renders this meaningless. There's virtually nothing that is produced and consumed totally within a single state.

[tpaine]

Good grief roscoe. Posting such one line bits of legal pap is really lame.
The fact remains, -- you are backing the socialist position on our constitutional rights to possess property, - drugs, guns, --- whatever.

You are NOT a 'conservative'.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Bibles don't equal pornography, libertarian dogma notwithstanding.

Your posts are so illuminating and enlightening. It's a wonder you're not winning the hearts and minds of Americans everywhere.

I take this to be the final and definitive dodge of my question, eh? Just like you cut and ran on the other thread?

As tpaine alluded to, you've got the socialist interpretation down cold. You need help with the conservative position. Arguing with you on this issue has been like arguing with a socialist about taxes, or a communist about capitalism, or an atheist about God.

[Free Vulcan]

And you didn't. If enforcement was the issue, then it would have sprouted back everywhere, not just one place. Obviously, there are other factors at play. I'd explain it in detail, but a one-liner mentality would have a difficult time keeping up.

[Roscoe]

Libertarianism is like a romper room full of special ed kids. With behaviorial problems.

A book is a physical object.

A Bible is a book.

A book of illegal pornography is also a book.

The porn will face various state and federal restrictions that the Bible will not.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Are you always this dull? The question was "Except for firearms, name one physical object the Federal government couldn't prohibit based on your interpretation of the Commerce Clause."

The government could very easily make the following case about the Bible:

(3) A major portion of Bible traffic 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 Bibles are transported in interstate commerce,

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

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

(4) Local distribution and possession of Bibles contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.

Try again.

[Roscoe]

You left out:

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

[servantoftheservant]

Ever been to a communist country? That's exactly what they would say about the Bible.

I'm uncomfortable with your assertion that the reason government can't control 'Bible trafficking' is that the government doesn't believe it poses a risk to the 'general welfare' of the American people. What happens if the government at sometime does decree that Bibles pollute peoples minds with 'hate' or something? Do they then have the right under the Constitution to regulate Bible trade?

[July 4th]

I'm not going to search the other 470 posts to see if someone had the same idea, but couldn't we call this a bong hit?

[VA Advogado]

I appreciate your comments. Why they love these drugs, I will never know. I do know that those types need to be locked up for a long time.

[WyldKard]

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

Great, so all the Government has to do is eventually "decide" that "Thing x" is a danger to the public. And if they decide that something like a Bible is a "danger to the public" they now have the authority to prohibit Bibles, or fatty food, or cigarettes, or ANYTHING, according to your wonderful, Socialistic viewpoint.

Sound silly? Of course it does. But not to the Chinese, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia. In their world view, Bibles are harmful things which must be restricted, and if someone like Hilary got into power, why couldn't she use your tortured version of the Commerce Clause to ban Bibles? Or any of the wonderful PATRIOT USA Powers we foolishly gave the Executive Branch, to harass loyal patriots?

But thats okay..someone like you puts all their faith and trust in the Government, because it takes a village, and all must sacrifice for the communal good. So tell me, do you actually keep a copy of the Little Red Book right next to your computer as well?

[tpaine]

Why they love these drugs, I will never know.

I do know that those types need to be locked up for a long time.
472
__________________________________

NO ONE here 'loves these drugs'.

Except your 'type' who use the excuse to control drugs as an excuse to control society, and subvert our constitution.

You should be locked ~out~ of FR, imo.

[budwiesest]

Why they love these drugs liberty, I will never know. I do know that those types need to be locked up for a long time.

The R's are missing a real opportunity here, but their 'moral' considerations will/must/have to come first. Should the D's take hold of ending an unconstitutional war on free people (as opposed to things such as Hillary-Care), the Right will have lost a significant portion of what is naturally their birthright-conserving liberty. Not to mention the many potential years of congressional dominance that now sits in their open hand, should they decide to grasp it.

Oh well, liberties lost or liberties preserved. It's just that liberty is the 'glue' that binds a free society together. Remove it and the social 'fabric' begins to unwind.

"All the King's horsemen and all the king's men........"

[Roscoe]

Ever been to a communist country? That's exactly what they would say about the Bible.

We're not a communist country.

[Roscoe]

Great, so all the Government has to do is eventually "decide" that "Thing x" is a danger to the public.

Libertarianism equates the right to publish the bible with the "right" to publish porn. Fortunately, the LP has very little political power.

[Roscoe]

The power of the state to enact the prohibition law consistently with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the exclusive power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states:

"That government can, consistently with the due process clause, forbid the manufacture and sale of liquor and regulate its traffic, is not open to controversy; and that there goes along with this power full police authority to make it effective, is also not open. Whether the general authority includes the right to forbid individual use, we need not consider, since clearly there would be power, as an incident to the right to forbid manufacture and sale, to restrict the means by which intoxicants for personal use could be obtained, even if such use was permitted. This being true, there can be no doubt that the West Virginia prohibition law did not offend against the due process clause of the 14th Amendment." -- JAMES CLARK DISTILLING CO. v. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO. , 242 U.S. 311 (1917)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=242&invol=311

[WyldKard]

"That government can, consistently with the due process clause, forbid the manufacture and sale of liquor and regulate its traffic, is not open to controversy; and that there goes along with this power full police authority to make it effective, is also not open. Whether the general authority includes the right to forbid individual use, we need not consider, since clearly there would be power, as an incident to the right to forbid manufacture and sale, to restrict the means by which intoxicants for personal use could be obtained, even if such use was permitted. This being true, there can be no doubt that the West Virginia prohibition law did not offend against the due process clause of the 14th Amendment." -- JAMES CLARK DISTILLING CO. v. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO. , 242 U.S. 311 (1917)

They were talking about a STATE Prohibiting a substance. OF COURSE States have every right to prohibit a substance, as per the 10th Amendment. This does not prove any argument about the FEDGOV having the Constitutal authority to usurp state sovreignty and force all of them to be "dry". You need a Constitutional amendment to do this, which is why one was required inorder to enact Prohibition. If your Socialist reading of the Constitution was correct, the Amendment would never have been needed...

First, try actually reading the material you use to defend your points with...

[VA Advogado]

The founding fathers didn't risk everything so guys like Tpaine's friends could shoot heroin into their veins and smoke crack on our streets.