Posted on 10/01/2002 7:16:59 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
My answer to that would be, why didn't they simply pass a law and use the Commerce clause as their justification? The Commerce clause is just as potent as an Amendment if that is your argument...
The findings don't, the statute does.
Nor do 'statutes' show the constitutional basis of how congressional 'findings & declarations' can prohibit the possession of certain types of property.
KEYWORDS: 762 MM BUZZ; ANOTHER WOD SUCCESS; BLIND COPS; BS PRESS RELEASE; CHOICE OBEY OR PAY; DONT BOGART THAT MP5; DOPER BITES DUST; DOPER WHINEFEST; DRUG GESTAPO; DRUGGIE MEET DARWIN; DRUGSBAD DOPERSWORSE; ERNEST IS A FOOL; GENE POOL CLEANER; GOVERNMENT KILLING; GUBMINT EXTREMISTS; HIPPIE DOPER JUSTICE; JACK BOOTED THUG; LIBERDOPIANS AGAIN; MJ; O SAY CAN YOU THC; OBEY THE LAW OR PAY; POLICE; POT SMOKING NERD; SHOOTING; SPIKE TRAPS; SSSSSSSMOKIN; STATIST GOONS ALERT; SWAT; THE LAW IS THE LAW; THEWEEDSOFSTUPIDITY; TOOK BONG TO GUNFITE; WACKY TERBACKY; WHINEY HINEY DRUGIES; WOD; WOD CIRCLE JERKAnyone think this might be the issue on which Freepers are most divided? LOL
-Eric
Neither do you, if it involves the "substantial effects" test being applied to the Commerce Clause prior to 1937.
As I'm sure you know, the answer is simple, but Roscoe will never admit it. It's because until the federal regulatory craze of the New Deal gave the Commerce Clause such broad reach, such an overtly prohibitionary law would've probably been struck down as unconstitutional.
No.
Your question was "why Congress felt it necessary."
Who said they did?
At the national borders. Within our borders, it's contraband.
They? Congress wasn't even the moving force behind the Amendment.
You've ceased making an argument. Try something else.
What are you trying to say here Roscoe, that they passed it for sheer enjoyment? Did they just get up one day and all decide that they wanted to piss everybody off? What about the state legislatures that ratified the Amendment, did they just pass this for kicks as well?
Here's the problem, suppose the police get the wrong house - it does happen. And innocent homeowner responds to the sound of his front door getting kicked in by investigating with a firearm in his hand(s) as is his right?
"I'm sorry" to the widow and her kids on the part of the police ain't gonna cut 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)"Drug trafficking organizations in Mexico and Colombia produce an estimated 10,000 metric tons of marijuana yearly; approximately 7,500 metric tons of that marijuana is intended for U.S. markets."
Gimme Ganja ya ya yaaa ya.
Congress wasn't even the force seeking passage of a Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment was ratified by the states.
The Anti-Saloon League, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party were some of the key groups seeking the Amendment, which they felt would never be repealed.
I know. Sources, cites, links, facts, figures and the like aren't to your liking. Perhaps I could follow your lead and simply make assertions.
In 1824. So much for the whackjob assertion that all of the courts in America for the last 70 years have been part of a "New Deal" conspiracy.
Oh, and the illicit drug trade is actual commerce.
"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
But Roscoe, Congress IS responsible for drawing up the Amendment and SUBMITTING it to the States..
They COULD have simply passed an Act which would have prohibited liquor under the Commerce clause (if that clause WOULD empower them to do so). As they obviously saw that such an action WOULD be unconstitutional, they knew that they HAD to add an Amendment to the Constitution in order to PROHIBIT liquor.
One interesting point to be made here as well is the fact that although the 18th Amendment prohibited the sale, manufacture, and transportation of liquor, it DIDN'T prohibit possesion. Apparently, they thought that would never survive a constitutional challenge. Equally apparent is the fact that those who drafted our current drug laws simply don't care if it's constitutional or not...
Sources, cites, links, facts, and figures are meaningless when you don't know what the Christ you're talking about, Roscoe. Try taking a Con Law class before you get all huffy!
He whimpered.
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.