Posted on 11/22/2006 7:35:17 AM PST by Dick Bachert
Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.
I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.
The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.
There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.
No offense intended.
(I suspect I know the answer. I am conversing with people of sub-prime cognitive skills.)
You are ALMOST correct. My thinking is if you add about, oh, say, eight more subs in front of prime, you'll still be off by an order of magnitude, but you'll be closer to the mark on old One-Note Johnnie.
"Nelson and Pushaw unfortunately accept Chief Justice Marshall's contention that this phrase means "concerns more states than one" -- the view they correctly say has been accepted by courts ever since. Thus they contend that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate not only "commerce that actually moves 'between' the states" but also commerce "that occurs within a state and has external effects."
Hmmmm. That would be Founding Father and Chief Justice John Marshall. I'm assuming Mr. Barnett is referring to Chief Justice Marshall's 1824 ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1:
"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."
Meaning, of course, that Congress may regulate commerce which does "extend to or affect other States". Gosh, who to believe -- Mr. Barnett of Chief Justice Marshall?
See my #524.
Great, the libertarians that brought us Democrat control of Congress and the Senate are taking a break to once again give us a chat about their love of pot and other drugs on FR.
I AM SO THRILLED...NOT!
Ah liberatrians...the root of all evil. It must be that weed they smoke...yeah, that's it.
Why are you reading old old posts? There's so much more interesting things going on right now.
Care to back up your slanderous allegations little fellow?:)
Really, try stepping away from the TV and the afterschool specials and educating yourself on the subject.
Your tired DEA, FBI, DARE , Reefer Madness talking points will come home to roost someday.
The Gubmint will use past practices and standards to take away your freedom. It's just a matter of when the money well runs dry and they need a new source.
You see I'm not an enemy of yours. I believe in freedom, as you do too.
The difference is you want to be the moralistic imterpreter of that which you see before you. Freedom is not something to be regulated, it is to be celebrated. Even if there are those that can't handle it. It really is that precious.
Ooof! Looks like I missed plenty of fireworks on this thread.
The WoD has to be one of the longest continually-running arguments on Free Republic. I wonder if anyone who has ever participated in a WoD Thread has actually had a change of opinion?
The WoD has to be one of the longest continually-running arguments on Free Republic. I wonder if anyone who has ever participated in a WoD Thread has actually had a change of opinion?
While properly rejecting Crosskey's claim that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate any commerce anywhere in the United States174, Nelson and Pushaw unfortunately accept Chief Justice Marshall's contention that this phrase means "concerns more states than one"175--the view they correctly say has been accepted by courts ever since176. Thus they contend that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate not only "commerce that actually moves 'between' the states" but also commerce "that occurs within a state and has external effects."177 But they offer no evidence to rebut the sources that clearly spoke of commerce as "between state and state."178
The paragraph that directly follows the above makes Barnett's wider context clear that he is showing the original meaning of, "among the several states". Which is certainly not in support Nelson and Pushaw.
The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce that occurs "among the several States," which we have seen meant "between state and state" or between persons in one state and persons in another. It does not speak of a power to regulate commerce that "concerns" more than one state, or even commerce between persons of the same state that somehow "concerns" other states. By the same token, the Commerce Clause also empowers Congress to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations,
In the paragraph that directly follows the above, Barnett speaks directly to the issue of Marshal's "vague formulation has..."
Marshall's vague formulation has improperly permitted the expansion of the power to regulate commerce beyond that which actually crosses state lines. The interpretive issue at this juncture is not whether it might be "necessary and proper" to regulate either noncommercial actions or entirely intrastate commerce that has a direct impact upon commerce that does cross state lines. The issue here is whether Congress's power under the Commerce Clause extends to commerce that occurs wholly within one state but still can be said to "concern" more states than one. The original meaning of "among the several States" provides no warrant for this extension of power.
RP: Gosh, who to believe -- Mr. Barnett of Chief Justice Marshall?
Barnett is correct. The document at the supplied link gives thorough exploration and research to determine the original meaning of the commerce clause: The Original Meaning Of The Commerce Clause -- University of Chicago University of Chicago Law Review - Winter, 2001 - 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101
BTW, Mr. Barnett isn't "of" Chief Justice Marshal. I suppose you were originally going to provide where Mr. Barnett was writing/published from (Ie., Mr. Barnett of...) but then changed your mind because to acknowledge Mr. Barnet of University of Chicago, University of Chicago Law Review, lends credibility you didn't want the reader to be aware of. But of course you make sure to acknowledge credibility lent to Mr. Marshall.
* * *
Randy E. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law. He has also taught torts, criminal law, evidence, agency and partnership, and jurisprudence. After graduating from Northwestern University and Harvard Law School, he tried many felony cases as a prosecutor in the Cook County States' Attorney's Office in Chicago. In November 2004, he appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue the medical cannabis case of Gonzalez v. Raich (for a transcript of the argument click here), after successfully arguing in the Ninth Circuit in 2003. He also represents the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. He also coauthored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.
Professor Barnett lectures internationally and appears frequently on radio and television programs such as the CBS Evening News, The News Hour (PBS), Talk of the Nation (NPR), and the Ricki Lake Show. He delivered the Kobe 2000 lectures in jurisprudence at the University of Tokyo and Doshisha University in Kyoto, a series that previously featured Ronald Dworkin, Joseph Raz and Will Kimlicka. He has also lectured on contract law theory at Waseda University (Tokyo) and on criminal justice theory at Kansai University (Osaka) and has been a visiting professor at Northwestern and Harvard Law School.
Professor Barnett's scholarship includes more than eighty articles and reviews, as well as seven books, including Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, (Princeton, 2004), which was awarded the Lysander Spooner Book Award for the best book on liberty for 2004,Contracts Cases and Doctrine (Aspen, 3rd ed. 2003) and Perspectives on Contract Law (Aspen, 3rd ed. 2005). His book The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law (Oxford, 1998) was awarded the Ralph Gregory Elliot Book Award and has been translated into Japanese. His working papers can be found here.
Professor Barnett is a senior fellow of the Cato Institute in Washington DC and the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. Before moving to Boston University, he was the Legal Affairs Contributor for WBEZ (NPR) in Chicago where he broadcast a 15-hour series on the Bill of Rights.
To see and hear Professor Barnett discuss his new book Restoring the Lost Constitution (with critical commentary by Walter Dellinger and Judge David Sentelle) click here for Real Video and here for Real Audio.
The New LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) Promotional video:
"End Prohibition Now"
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.