"What difference does that make? Guns, drugs, spotted owls, freon - it's all 'commerce.'" -- tacticalogic
Again, I am not a Libertarian or one of its "fellow travelers."
I disagree.
Right: commerce, not guns. The whole authority of the CSA is predicated on a New Deal interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce---NOTHING ELSE. For the last time, I am not advocating in any way that drugs shouldn't be illegal because guns are or aren't: I'm fumbling because I don't even know how to make such a ridiculous argument.Read the preamble to the CSA---you're fond of posting it so I'm sure you're very familiar with it. Note the excess it goes to in order to make the argument that drugs always affect commerce in some way. In Lopez the Court claimed a single gun cannot, in any way, affect interstate commerce---in fact the very thought of it was ridiculous. So therefore they decided quite rightly that the federal government was over-reaching when it passed the Gun Free School Zone laws because it relied upon the Commerce Clause for its authority. Many of us here find it ironic and hypocritical that the Court---Supreme or Circuit or whathaveyou---can claim with a straight face that a single marijuana plant could affect the national economy directly in such a grave manner that it needs to be regulated by the Federal government in order to prevent the Union from crumbling into disrepair.
Again, I am not a Libertarian or one of its "fellow travelers." I disagree.
Knock your socks off. It makes no difference to me.