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

To: dcwusmc
nothing that confers authority to fedgov to prohibit it

Militia malarkey.

This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.

§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

"It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953."

"Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit."

https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html

341 posted on 01/16/2003 6:50:04 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]


To: Roscoe
It is insane, roscoe, -- for you to post & repost, -- insisting that a 'congressional finding' can prohibit 'controled' substances.
The 18th amendment proves otherwise. - Case closed.
347 posted on 01/16/2003 7:06:04 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies ]

To: Roscoe
Once upon a time the Congress and the Supremes both agreed that certain classes of people were subject to be owned by other people, with no recourse. The pipe dreams of those days are reflected in the CSA, and with the same validity; i.e.: none whatsoever. You can cite this bull-bleep forever and ever, amen, and it means the same thing each time: You are high on something that reeks. Plus you are deluding yourself. And there WILL be a reckoning, soon or late, it will come. I know you are not a fan of the 10th Amendment, but it IS still there and, despite being ignored by both parties, has yet to be repealed. Your usual bull-bleep notwithstanding, there is ZERO authority in the Constitution for the United States for FedGov to prohibit ONCE SINGLE SOLITARY THING. Call it militia malarkey all you want... that PROVES NOTHING and you know it. Aside from your bluster and BS, you have nothing. You are an empty Edgar suit on a pile of dung. That must be a pretty sad sight when you peep into the mirror each morning... or do you even cast a reflection? Enquiring minds want to know.
431 posted on 01/18/2003 11:18:44 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | 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