Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
So you going to stick with your geezer comment and double down on being wrong?
“The problem is that society doesn’t work that way. Without morality, do you think we are going to get things like respect for private property rights? Limited government only works with a strong moral fabric underlying it - with weak morals - you will get a nation dependent on the state for their well being.”
Start addressing this argument instead of ignoring it.
Ergo - drug distribution can be regulated by the federal government.
That means drug distribution from foreign countries into the US can b regulated by the federal government.
Any authority you grant them to regulate drugs under the Commerce Clause can be applied just as well to firearms. Consider carefully just how generous you think the Founders intended to be with that power.
There will be a test later.
That would fall under authority of regulating commerce with foreign nations, where Congress has plenary power.
The power to regulate intrastate drug policy by fedgov depends on the expansive New Deal Commerce Clause, which applies to anything that has a 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce. It is what allows fedgov to control health care, the environment and education, among others. Clarence Thomas has said (and he's right) that this view of the Commerce Clause has all but nullified the Tenth Amendment.
As I said, you support the expansive New Deal Commerce Clause and are willing to see the Tenth Amendment trampled. Stop denying it.
I don’t see how the deregulation in WA especially would prevent drugs from entering the country. Smuggle it in WA - stamp ‘made in WA’, and you’d be set.
“Any authority you grant them to regulate drugs under the Commerce Clause can be applied just as well to firearms. Consider carefully just how generous you think the Founders intended to be with that power.”
Not so. If you can show me the amendment that says that you have the right to possess dope, I’ll agree with you.
See, this is the problem with libertarians. The 2nd Amendement is explicit, and we do ourselves a disservice by drawing an invalid analogy.
My, you do work hard at appearing thickheaded.
Argue with your strawmen. You appear to enjoy it. You might even win, lol.
I bet you don’t even recognize who’s argument it is. :)
Dazzling. Never before seen in the annals of FR history. /s
Did you know James Madison argued against having a Bill of Rights? He said that all of the limitations on the power of the federal government expressed in the BOR were already implicit in the Constitution, by virtue of the absence of an enumerated power.
He argued that the danger of such an "enumeration of rights" would be that people who sought to subvert the basic principle of a national government of limited and enumerated power would abuse it to argue that the People and the States only retain those rights specifically enumerated, thus granting the national government all powers not explicitly denied.
If you're going to be one of those people, we aren't going to get along at all.
The Tenth Amendment is also explicit, yet you seem to have no problem with fedgov violating it when they're carrying out a policy you like.
The point is you’re drawing an analogy that your right to possess dope is the same as the right of someone to possess arms.
That is not the case. No amendment that I am aware of - demonstrates that you have a right to possess dope explicitly. The second amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms.
If you are going to argue by analogy, you are doing the second amendment a disservice.
Implicit and explicit protections are not the same thing. You’re arguing that there exists an implicit right to possession of a controlled substance in the constitution. Even if I accept all your premisses, that doesn’t meant that this implicit right is protected in the same way as possession of firearms.
The question that we have before us here - is whether the 10th explicitly applies to an enumerated power of the federal government over imposts. Your argument hinges on the tenth - arguing that the states have rights over powers not enumerated to the federal government, and as nothing in the constitution says that marijuana possession is banned that we ought to permit it. However, this is not so.
The state does have the right to control substances. The state can say, “no we are not going to become the haven for dope growers and pushers”. So let’s get that right there - there is nothing contrary to the state banning the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana.
Second, the question as to whether the federal government has the power to regulate controlled substances, also isn’t contested either. The framers did give the state power over imports because that was how the state was to collect tariffs, and sovereignty issues with the united states. Given that dope distribution isn’t going to remain within a state - it is the concern of the federal government to regulate controlled substances and their distribution in the United States.
If the dope growers in WA did two things:
1, ensured that there was strict limitations on producers AND, kept a close eye on dope entering the state, then I could see it working with the Feds. However, that’s not what I see. What I am seeing from people I know is that they see it as ‘wide open’, anyone can cultivate, and with no limits on distribution, nothing.
That is what the dope lobby you are siding with is fighting for. Freedom from responsibility with the expectation that the responsible folks pick up the bill for both treatment and detox.
Do you want to be paying for other folk’s treatment under Obamacare for their drug addiction?
Arguments that possession of dope = possession of firearms is a terrible argument.
Explicit protections != Implicit protection. There is nothing barring a state from banning dope. That is not the case for firearms.
That's not the argument and you know it. The argument is that the Tenth Amendment should be honored along with Second Amendment.
But keep spitting on the Tenth so you can have your national prohibition, Mr. Wickard.
It starts from a premise that violates a fundamental principle of the architecture of the republic - that the national government is one of limited and enumerated powers and only has those powers explicitly enumerated.
To adopt your line of reasoning will result in granting to the national government all powers not explicitly denied.
That's just dead nuts wrong.
I’ve been arguing that control over importation is an enumerated power of the federal government and that the 10th only applies to powers not enumerated.
That was the argument advanced. If you want conservatives to take your arguments seriously, then you need to stop elevating dope rights to gun rights.
Have you been applying that argument in the context of the regulation of posession and distribution of all drugs, whether they are imported or not?
Don't misstate my argument. A state has authority to decide intrastate drug policy, be it prohibition or legalization. The Tenth Amendment should be honored along with the Second Amendment.
Now tell us, how do you justify trampling the Tenth Amendment?
By arguing that controlled substances are an enumerated power of the federal government per impost duties?
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.