Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic
Unable to make your case, you demand that I disprove it. Very well.

Direct effects, for one. The CSA explicitly notes various aspects of the trade in illicit drugs which cross state lines.

"The subject to which the power is next applied is to commerce among the several states. The word among means intermingled with. A thing which is among others is intermingled with them. 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. Such a power would be inconvenient and is certainly unnecessary. Comprehensive as the word among is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one."
-- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Now, have you got anything to support your position? Anything at all?
575 posted on 10/03/2002 3:38:16 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies ]


To: Roscoe
Prohibition based on Commerce Clause authority involves applying ICC authority to potential commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden was limited to actual commerce, and further, limited to commercial commerce, and specifically exempted personal commerce. Try again.
584 posted on 10/03/2002 4:15:25 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson