[robertpaulsen]

Even with proof....

The Controlled Substances Act (current anti-drug laws) was passed in 1970. It has been constitutionally tested in different federal courts numerous times. It has been been found constitutional unanimously.

Despite this, the drug legalization crowd still insists that the CSA is unconstitutional. So much for the validity of "testing".

So, please forgive me if I don't waste my time proving something to you or anyone else just to be brushed off.

If you want to take the time to document a case, I'll listen.

[MrLeRoy]

The Controlled Substances Act [...] has been constitutionally tested in different federal courts numerous times. It has been been found constitutional unanimously.

The Roe v Wade ruling passes the same test; color me unimpressed.

[jayef]

Flawed logic and a sorry attempt at silencing the debate. Similar to NARALs tactics and to Roe v Wade. That debate did not end with the Supreme Court, and neither will this one.

[bvw]

To a Roosevelt Democrat or a Nixonian Republican -- which pretty much represent the interpretation of the Constitution since the 1930's -- you are obviously correct. The "enumerated powers, limited government" aspects of the Constitution are by those groups, ignored, irrelevant. To those groups, the Federal Government has any power as long as some reason can be had for it.

However, as your very short, squid, bow-shot of a attempt before showed -- Courts that operated closer to the Founder's intent, to the very words of that charter, would never have sustained such unlimited and uncharted excercise of power, excepting only the greatest of dangers to the nation -- example being the suspension of habeus corpus in the Civil War.