Posted on 10/01/2002 7:16:59 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
Dozens protest Preble County police shooting
Slain man’s roommates say he was unarmed
EATON | Preble County law-enforcement officials declined to talk publicly Monday as they turned information about Friday's fatal shooting by a police officer of a 23-year-old man over to detectives from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office.
Montgomery County investigators, called in by Preble County Sheriff Tom Hayes, also said they would not talk about their review of the shooting by a member of a Preble County's emergency services group — officers from a number of police departments who are trained to handle drownings and hostage and other situations.
However, it was anything but quiet outside the Preble County Courthouse, where dozens of friends and relatives picketed and said that police were covering up what happened to Clayton Jacob Helriggle, 23, of 1282 Ohio 503 South.
The protesters disputed police claims that Helriggle had a gun when he descended a stairwell and was shot by a Lewisburg police officer, whose identity has not been released. Friends and relatives on Monday carried blue plastic cups similar to the one they said Helriggle had in his hand Friday night.
Among the protesters were four of Helriggle's roommates, three of whom said they were inside the brick farmhouse when police stormed the house to serve a warrant to search for narcotics.
Maj. Wayne Simpson of the Preble County Sheriff's Office declined to discuss information about what happened Friday night and said a report on the shooting of the Preble County man had not been completed. Preble County Prosecutor Rebecca Ferguson said she sealed the search warrant after the shooting, and had no comment regarding the investigation.
"They're a professional group of officers, that's what their job is, and I'm not going to second-guess them. Whatever (Montgomery County officials) come up with, they come up with," Ferguson said.
Friends called Helriggle "peaceful and nonviolent," but police said the 1997 Twin Valley South High School graduate held a 9 mm handgun, not a blue cup, in his right hand when he descended the dimly lighted stairs. Roommates said Helriggle owned a 9 mm gun, but that it was upstairs when police entered their house.
"It's like we were armed, hardened criminals waiting inside to take them on," said Wes Bradley, 26, who lived in the bottom of the six-bedroom farmhouse with his girlfriend, 22-year-old Tasha Webster.
Bradley said he and Webster were near the kitchen next to the stairs, when officers "broke through the back door with battering rams and started throwing in flash grenades three at a time, to blind us."
The officers wore full body armor and carried shields, he said.
Another roommate, Ian Albert, said he had returned home from the grocery store with Chris Elmore, 24, who remained outside while Albert ran into the house.
"We saw at least two paddy wagon-type vehicles, like a SWAT bus," Elmore said. "About 30 officers stormed out of the woods" surrounding the farmhouse. "They'd cut the barbed wire, and you could see a staging area, like where 25 to 30 uniformed cops had been lying down and slithered along the grass."
Officers ordered Elmore to get on the ground, and he said he heard three pops, which he said could have been the flash grenades and gunshot.
"I yelled 'Nobody's armed,' and they told me, 'Shut up, shut up.' ”
Elmore described the action "like a movie, in slow motion."
Inside, Albert said, the police threw him against the staircase, "with my head on the second step up. I wanted to yell at Clay, but I looked up and saw him, rounding the stairway, and he had this look on his face, like, 'What's going on?' and the cops yelled, 'Get down' and then 'boom.' ”
Albert, who completed four months of Navy Seal training, said he reached up for Helriggle, "and I tried to apply pressure," he said, placing his left palm on his right chest, where Helriggle was struck by the gunshot.
"He died in my arms," he said. "It took about two minutes."
Albert said he was placed in a sheriff's car, and Helriggle's parents arrived.
"They saw me, drenched in Clay's blood, and they ask me, 'Is he all right?' and I just shook my head. The cops are smoking and joking, high-fiving each other. Wow, I think, they took down a farm of unarmed hippies.
"If they would have come to the door and said, 'Give us your dope, hippies,' we'd have gotten about a $100 ticket."
Police said they confiscated a small amount of marijuana, pills, drug paraphernalia and quantities of packaging items used in the distribution of marijuana.
The four roommates said they smoke marijuana from time to time and that they had marijuana pipes in the house. Bradley said he had a prescription for Fiorocet, a codeinelike painkiller, for a bad knee. They said the packaging police referred to was a box of plastic sandwich bags.
Webster said there was nothing in the house "that a good divorce lawyer couldn't have gotten us out on a misdemeanor," and said an old shotgun and a .22-caliber rifle found there were used for hunting.
"We target-practiced outside all the time, shot at bales of hay, jugs, that sort of thing," Webster said.
Bradley and Webster said Helriggle took a nap around 5 p.m. and had made plans to meet his girlfriend later.
"I'm not sure if he woke up from the bashing on the door or what," Bradley said.
All four said they were not read their rights or told what charges were filed against them. They were released from the Preble County Jail around 1:30 a.m. Saturday. No criminal charges have been filed.
Nancy Fahrenholz, the daughter of Everett "Bill" Fahrenholz, an attorney and former country prosecutor, hugged Bradley on Monday at the courthouse. Helriggle and five roommates rented the house from the Fahrenholzes.
"I'm so sorry," said Fahrenholz, a Rhode Island resident in the area to finish up the estate of her father, Bill Fahrenholz, who died a month ago.
"(Dad) would have been furious at this," she said. "We're all very distressed."
She said Helriggle "was a really nice guy," and that her family was pleased with the five young people's work on rehabilitating the farmhouse.
Helriggle's 77-year-old grandfather, Donald, a Miamisburg resident and Ohio Bell retiree, said his grandson rented the farmhouse "so they could play their instruments, listen to their music and drink a little beer. . . . They just wanted to be doing what 23-year-olds do."
Controlled Substances ActThe Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legal foundation of the government's fight against the abuse of drugs and other substances. This law is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the illicit production of controlled substances.
The CSA places all substances that are regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules. This placement is based upon the substance's medicinal value, harmfulness, and potential for abuse or addiction. Schedule I is reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use, while Schedule V is the classification used for the least dangerous drugs. The act also provides a mechanism for substances to be controlled, added to a schedule, decontrolled, removed from control, rescheduled, or transferred from one schedule to another.
Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.
The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from law enforcement laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.
Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the DEA Administrator, by authority of the Attorney General, requests from the HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of the HHS. Then, the HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.
Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed.
The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.
UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE
Copyright (c) 1996, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing
*** CURRENT THROUGH 104-115, 3/12/96, EXCEPT FOR PLs 104, 106, 114 ***
TITLE 21. FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13. DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
21 USCS Section 801 (1996)
Section 801. Findings and declarations
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(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.
(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--
after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE
Copyright (c) 1996, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing
*** CURRENT THROUGH 104-115, 3/12/96, EXCEPT FOR PLs 104, 106, 114 ***
TITLE 21. FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13. DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
21 USCS Section 801A (1996)
Section 801a. Congressional findings and declarations
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
(1) The Congress has long recognized the danger involved in the manufacture, distribution, and use of certain psychotropic substances for nonscientific and nonmedical purposes, and has provided strong and effective legislation to control illicit trafficking and to regulate legitimate uses of psychotropic substances in this country. Abuse of psychotropic substances has become a phenomenon common to many countries, however, and is not confined to national borders. It is, therefore, essential that the United States cooperate with other nations in establishing effective controls over international traffic in such substances.
(2) The United States has joined with other countries in executing an international treaty, entitled the Convention on Psychotropic Substances and signed at Vienna, Austria, on February 21, 1971, which is designed to establish suitable controls over the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and use of certain psychotropic substances. The Convention is not self-executing, and the obligations of the United States thereunder may only be performed pursuant to appropriate legislation. It is the intent of the Congress that the amendments made by this Act, together with the existing law, will enable the United States to meet all of its obligations under the Convention and that no further legislation will be necessary for that purpose.
(3) In implementing the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the Congress intends that, consistent with the obligations of the United States under the Convention, control of psychotropic substances in the United States should be accomplished within the framework of the procedures and criteria for classification of substances provided in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. This will insure that (A) the availability of psychotropic substances to manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, and researchers for useful and legitimate medical and scientific purposes will not be unduly restricted; (B) nothing in the Convention will interfere with bona fide research activities; and (C) nothing in the Convention will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare [Secretary of Health and Human Services] on the basis of a consensus of the views of the American medical and scientific community.
"Sourceless, citeless, meritless, endless."
Exactly. Your arguments have consisted of nothing but assertions. No sources, no cites, no merit. Nothing else.
"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 . . . . ." -- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, No. 253 August Term, 1996Crash goes another HG invention.
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(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.
(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--
after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce, controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances. (5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate. (6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic. (7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
You just demolished your own argument, HG.
Fiat law? Fringe on the flag?
I'm sorry, Roscoe. I used to give you a modicum of respect, but now I'm wondering if you're being a bit dense, purposefully or otherwise.I've repeatedly claimed that the whole authority of the CSA was predicated on a New Deal interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce. Everything you've posted in support of your argument points exactly to that, yet you insist somehow it doesn't. To wit, your last post:
1) In what way does this prove your argument that the CSA is not predicated on the interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce? You've repeatedly dismissed my claim that it was with your patented one line "False" reply."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 . . . . ." -- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, No. 253 August Term, 1996
2) How could you possibly say that this definition of what constitutes interstate commerce is not overly broad? You could say a major portion of the traffic in ANYTHING flows through interstate and foreign commerce, and that 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, and that statement would be as valid as if you substituted the word "narcotics" for "anything" or "bicycles" for "anything." If you could make such a substitution and the resulting statement is equally as true, that, by definition, is an overly broad statement.
I think it's high time to admit that despite your legal "arguments" to the contrary, the only reason you support the War on Drugs is because you don't care for druggies and don't care what happens to them.
Oh brother. Your comment misses the point completely. Lopez wasn't even about RKBA. It was a commerce clause case. Sheez.
Exactly , and without a shred of evidence. Now you've posted the CSA findings that a major portion of the illicit drug trade flows across our state and national borders, which entirely demolishes you previous assertion.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
I think I see your problem. "Fiat" doesn't mean "fact."
Get a dictionary.
Since you apparently have never met Ian Albert personally, your assertion here is pure conjecture.
This guy didn't make it past the first Phase of training in all likelyhood, because the reality is that bootcamp can be extended for any number of reasons (and usually is), including waiting for a company to form (SEAL/UDT's are in "Special Companies" that usually take time to fill up), medical "holds" are common if the docs suspect anything is amiss (I spent an extra week in Navy boot camp waiting for a ruling on the shape of my ankle) and BUD/S candidates don't always pass the PST on the first try.
As in your earlier post, you claim that bootcamp is part of SEAL indoctrination. Sorry, but bootcamp is at Great Lakes, whereas BUD/S indoctrination is at Coronado.
Bootcamp at Great Lakes lasts 8 weeks. DURING that time, the recruit has FOUR chances to pass the PST. Upon successful completion of bootcamp, the candidate attends his "A" school in relation to his rate. After successfully completing that, he is bound for BUD/S training at Coronado.
BUD/S INDOCTRINATION lasts 5 weeks. After BUD/S indoctrination, there is 1st phase, which lasts 8 weeks. That brings us up to 13 weeks. Now there MIGHT have been a delay in "forming a company" or for other reasons, but it appears that Mr. Albert had to have made it to the end of 1st phase at least. And as other's have mentioned, that is no small feat in and of itself...
If he made it into "Hell Week" with it's five and a half days of endless running, swiming, calisthenics and only four hours of sleep in the week, he very likely couldn't tell ten hours from 10 minutes at the end of it (without smoking pot), so yes, I've known SEALs who told me that they lost all sense of time durring phase one training.
I think he's had the time to recover since then...
There were no "problems with his ears at depth" or "lack of swimming ability" because as I just mentioned, all SEAL candidates must pass a diving physical examination, completed per Chapter 15, Section IV, Article 15-66 of the Manual of the Medical Department BEFORE reporting to BUD/S training.
While true that a pressure test must be successfully passed before attending BUD/S, that doesn't include water in the ears at significant pressure. As far as the "swimming ability" comment, it is obvious that he knows how to swim if he made it that far. I was just saying that it is possible that he MIGHT have had problems in relation to underwater navigation and/or countless other things related to combat diving that are taught during 2nd phase..
It's also possible that he had problems getting a Secret clearance. That WOULD get him out of BUD/S training due to that requirement.
I called him a druggie only because his "best friend" was a druggie and he was evidently so stoned at the time of the raid that he couldn't tell a handgun from a "blue cup" or "a blue glass of water".
If the 9mm was upstairs at the time of the shooting and the victim was in the stairwell, guess what? He DIDN'T have a gun, and more than likely DID have something other than a gun in his hand. A blue cup of water doesn't seem that unlikely.
BTW, have YOU ever smoked pot? FYI, it DOESN'T make you hallucinate, and it DOESN'T impair your senses to a point where you mistake a gun for a cup. Maybe these black suited warriors should have smoked a joint, they might have seen the cup for what it was...
As far as this "druggie" label, I once had a roommate who had been a SEAL during the Vietnam war, and he smoked weed just as much as anyone else. You see, back then almost EVERYONE smoked pot, except for the real anal retentive nerds.
One of the articles states that the shooter was a "veteran" police officer.
There are MANY "veteran" police officers that have shot and killed innocent victims. If you'd like, I could post some material on that..
It's very unlikely that he shot an unarmed man for kicks in my experience and mho and it's very likely that he has more "credibility" than the dope-smokers.
I'd say that it was less for kicks than it was a result of the mindset that members of SWAT teams have these days. Civilians are considered the "enemy" and become "targets" instead of suspects.
I won't agree that the dead man's best friend and apparently the only civilian eyewittness - is something special because he washed out of the SEAL training in 13 or 16 weeks.
To me, the sheer fact that he signed up for BUD/S indicates that he was prepared to serve his country in a most unselfish way. Even if he did "wash out", he at least TRIED. That in my book scores a few points towards character...
BTW, the ones that wash out after "Hell Week" are usually either psycho or too selfish to work with a team, so the longer he hung in there, the more likely it is that he's a nut job.
I don't buy your explanation. What personal experience do you have to verify this hypothesis? You see, if he made it through 1st phase, he HAD to have worked well as a member of a team. And as far as the psycho reference, I think ALL SEALs are a bit psycho, otherwise they'd never volunteer for it in the first place or be able to pass BUD/S...
Add drugs to the mix and he's not my idea of the most "credible" reliable wittness, but to each his own.
I don't think people are giving him the credence of a saint, but he DOES have a bit more credence than some would like to admit...
What will it take to put a stop to this?
The CSA was passed by the vote of our elected representatives just like any other any other law.
Your hot air has no substance. As always.
Sorry, but you're confusing BUD/S indoctrination with bootcamp. BUD/S indoctrination != bootcamp. Here's the official BUD/S training sequence, along with some info on the training PRIOR to BUD/S...
| The SEAL Challenge Contract is the ONLY enlistment contract that guarantees you an opportunity to compete for a place at BUD/S. To see what the contract looks like, click on downloads. Your recruiter has a responsibility to inform you about the whole range of opportunities the Navy offers. But if you are certain about your commitment to SEAL training, let your recruiter know you want the SEAL Challenge Contract and settle for nothing else. If the recruiter tells you that you do not qualify for the contract, contact a SEAL recruiter or motivator first, before signing anything, to see if we can help you get the waiver you may need. The SEAL Challenge Contract guarantees you a place at BUD/S only if you pass the physical screen test during boot camp (you get four opportunities). You MUST pass the physical screen test to gain admission to BUD/S. Play it smart and safe: Make SURE you can meet the minimum physical screening requirements BEFORE enlisting and going to boot camp. The Path To BUD/S ENLISTMENT BOOT CAMP Perhaps most important, keep yourself in top physical shape. You will get four opportunities during boot camp to pass the physical screening test. If you wish to attend BUD/S, you MUST pass the test. The screen test will be given by Navy SEALs at Boot Camp. The SEALs can be found in the Dive Motivator's office at the pool. They will give a Special Warfare brief on 1-4 day. "A" SCHOOL Be sure to continue your physical training. Upon successful completion of "A" School, you are bound for BUD/S. You must be in peak physical condition to meet the BUD/S challenge. If your "A" School is located in the vicinity of RTC Great Lakes, Illinois; NAB Little Creek, Virginia; or San Diego, California check in with the SEAL recruiters/motivators. They will assist you with a training program to maintain or improve your physical condition so you can successfully meet the challenges that await you at BUD/S. BUD/S |
And from the BUD/S page
|
INDOCTRINATION FIRST PHASE - BASIC CONDITIONING The first two weeks of First Phase prepare you for the third week, known as "Hell Week." Students participate in five and one-half days of continuous training, with a maximum of four hours sleep for the entire week. This week is designed as the ultimate test of one's physical and mental motivation while in First Phase. During Hell Week, you will learn the value of the mainstay of the SEAL Teams: TEAMWORK! The remaining five weeks are devoted to teaching methods of conducting hydrographic surveys, preparing hydrographic charts and instruction in basic maritime operations. SECOND PHASE - DIVING Second Phase concentrates on combat SCUBA (Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus). Students are taught two types of SCUBA: open circuit (compressed air) and closed circuit (100% oxygen). You participate in a progressive dive schedule emphasizing the basic combat swimmer skills necessary to qualify as a combat diver. These skills will enable you to operate tactically and to complete your combat objective. These are the skills that separate SEALs from all other special operations forces.
THIRD PHASE - LAND WARFARE POST-BUD/S SCHOOLS After successfully completing SQT, qualified personnel are awarded a Naval Special Warfare designation Trident Insignia. They are then assigned to a SEAL Team. New combat swimmers serve the remainder of their first enlistment (2.5 to 3 years) in either an SDV or a SEAL Team. Upon reenlistment, the member may be ordered to the remainder of a five-year sea tour. Navy corpsmen who complete BUD/S and Basic Airborne Training also attend two weeks of Special Operations Technician training at the Naval Special Warfare Center, Coronado. They also participate in an intense course of instruction in diving medicine and medical skills called 18-D (Special Operations Medical Sergeant Course). This is a 30-week course where students receive training in treating burns, gunshot wounds, and trauma. A broad range of advanced training opportunities is available. Advanced courses include: Sniper School, Dive Supervisor, language training, SEAL tactical communication, and many others. Shore duty opportunities are available in research and development, instructor duty, and overseas assignments. FITNESS STANDARDS BUD/S students participate in challenging training, and daily encounter opportunities to develop and test their stamina and leadership. BUD/S training is extremely thorough -- both physically and mentally -- but through adequate preparation and a positive attitude you can meet its challenges with confidence. |
"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 . . . . ." -- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, No. 253 August Term, 1996"Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior. It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a state, or between different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to or affect other states. ." -- United States Supreme Court, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824)
1824 was before the "New Deal", wasn't it?
"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 . . . . ." -- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, No. 253 August Term, 1996"Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior. It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a state, or between different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to or affect other states. ." -- United States Supreme Court, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824)
I know, I know. You don't do cites.
You're still being purposefully dense. I've suggested that the CSA "findings" themselves, and the language used in the preamble to the CSA that I posted, above, are what's overly broad.You seem to take it on faith that because Congress labels something a finding, that finding is unquestionably and unequivocably true. Tell you what: why don't you post the scientific methodology and the facts, figures, and data Congress used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the CSA says is so obvious---that a single marijuana plant grown in the home of a private citizen affects the national economy on such a obviously direct and grand scale---to the detriment of the economy, too---so much so, in fact, that government is compelled to take action in order to remove that marijuana plant from the American economy and throw the grower and owner of that plant into federal prison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.