Replies

Exactly. Your arguments have consisted of nothing but assertions. No sources, no cites, no merit. Nothing else.

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:

"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

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.
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.

I've repeatedly claimed that the whole authority of the CSA was predicated on a New Deal interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce.

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!

The whole authority of the CSA is predicated on a New Deal interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce---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, 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?