Posted on 02/07/2003 5:24:37 AM PST by Jimmyclyde
While I know that certain members of the pro-jackboots FR lobby will respond with a vehement flurry of cut-and-paste technology from court cases where the CSA has been upheld as constitutional, those same people will probably agree with me that Brady - in spite of it's "constitutionality being upheld" is clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Can we say , Drugs are Cancer and WOD is the laser used to treat it? If we use the laser properly to just get rid of the Cancer cells, it would not be a problem. We are using it to burn a lot of other organs (Read, trample on Rights), and that is when we feel the pain.
You my friend are a prophet.
LOL!!
As it has been pointed out many, many times on this forum, the dubious "constitutionality" of drug prohibition laws has its basis in the New Deal-era twisting of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which FDR used to advance his socialist agenda. All legal precedents regarding the ICC were basically thrown out the window by the USSC in the 1930s, and a whole raft of new precedents were set, paving the way for the modern Imperial Federal Government which sticks its nose in every aspect of our lives. That's why (in the days before FDR) the 18th Amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol.
Face the facts: in the 1930s, the U.S. Supreme Court shirked its duties of INTERPRETING the Constitution, and became a POLITICAL body, beholden to an imperial Presidency. All of Roscoe's "cut-and-paste" of court documents citing the "commerce power" as basis for unconstitutional decisions can't change that fact.
The question has been begged many, many times, always without sources, cites or authorities in support.
By contrast:
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:
- (1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (3) 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 because -
- (A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
- (B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
- (C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
- (4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
- (5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
- (6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
- (7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
Appellant John Wacker argues that the section of the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 under which he was convicted, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (the "Drug Act"), impermissibly regulates intrastate activities which do not substantially affect interstate commerce, in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Although he does not cite United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), we assume that he asks us, in light of that recent decision, to reconsider our holding in United States v. King, 485 F.2d 353, 356 (10th Cir. 1973), that 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is constitutional.United States v. WackerThis argument was recently rejected by the Fourth Circuit, see United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995), and we agree that it is without merit.
Moreover, contrary to Leshuk's alternative contention, the Drug Act is not unconstitutional as applied if his possession and cultivation were for personal use and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. Although a conviction under the Drug Act does not require the government to show that the specific conduct at issue substantially affected interstate commerce, see Scales, 464 F.2d at 373, Lopez expressly reaffirmed the principle that "where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1629 (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 197 n.27 (1968)); see also United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995); Scales, 464 F.2d at 374- 76. We thus reject Leshuk's Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of the Drug Act.
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 v. United States
How many times have you begged that question?
In fact:
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago
How was Congress able to ban and restrict alcohol prior to the passage of the 18th amendment????? (Bassmaner, obviously years before FDR)
I rest my case.
Very slowly now, for those who can't see the connection between falling rain and wet grass:
Slam. Dunk. Over.
You support an unconstitutional prohibition, and that proves it. Your denial only soothes your own mind.
I was just trying to get an answer from you. Were those Acts unconstitutional? If your answer is "not necessarily", so be it.
Dominic Harr, care to hazard a guess as to the answer to my question in post #112:
How was Congress able to ban and restrict alcohol prior to the passage of the 18th amendment?
And lost your case.
You either show constitutional authority for a fed gov ban of drugs, or else you lose.
It's very simple. Any logical thinker can see it. Which is why you avoided "seeing" the evidence in the first place. I mean, actually quoting from a post that included the evidence while stating you haven't seen any evidence!?! That is denial of the most powerful kind! I'm not here to convince you, no one can force others to look at uncomfortable truths. I only latch onto the winning slam dunk argument in a debate and then refuse to let go. Distraction will not help you, denial will only reinforce your loss.
How was congress able to do that in 1917? The same way they do it now -- unconstitutionally. It was wartime. Think back to the constitutional abuses Lincoln was able to accomplish during wartime.
There are none so blind as those who choose not to see, my friend.
I see.
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.