Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
“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?”
Hence my point earlier about WA ensuring that distribution within the state originates from WA only and not points northward. From what I can see, WA is unwilling to police it, and until they are willing to make sure that distribution within the state comes from WA only - then this is really a non-starter.
My fear is that dope will be smuggled into WA, stamped with ‘made in WA’, and shipped everywhere in the US. What is WA’s plan to make sure this doesn’t happen?
If you aren't going to, say so now.
Bloomberg believes that all the other states should ban handguns to prevent them from being brought into New York. He believe that enacting that ban should obligate everyone else to help him enforce it.
Once again, fedgov regulation of intrastate drug policy is not based on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It is based on the expansive view (Wickard v Filburn) of Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. Got that?
That is exactly what you support when you support fedgov control of intrastate drug policy. Again, how do you justify trampling the Tenth Amendment?
How exactly does WA plan to regulate drug smuggling into WA for the purposes of evading federal authority?
Once again - drugs = guns.
Where is there an amendment which states you have a right to use pot? The two are not equivalent.
Answered your question already. Answer mine. :)
How about you deal with the problem the easier way, pass laws to say run-off elections must be held if no candidate gets over 50%? If there was no run-off in the Texas Senate primary, Ted Cruz would be the loser. Instituting runoff elections is a lot easier than trying to identify and convince all the libertarian voters to change their vote.
I agree. The Republican party needs to stop criticizing, attacking, belitting, and taking party funds away from pro-lifers and social conservatives.
Dodge.
If you allow for abortions, then you are pro-abortion. It’s that simple.
If I say, “Murder is wrong.”, but then say, “It’s OK to murder in Idaho.”, do you not see the contradiction?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with what Idahoans legally enact. Murder in Idaho would still be a violation of “Life”, a right given by God and not by any state or legislative body.
Not such a far-fetched example,actually. For we believe that abortion is the unlawful taking of life without due process after the commission of some high crime.
I'm having a good chuckle over the fact that all of CO is now potentially one gigantic indoor growing operation, and there isn't a damn thing the feds can do about it. How rich!
You are conflating them and destroying that distinction when you use the example of the the federal government imposing a tariff or embargo on foreign goods with them regulating the movement of goods between the states.
Please explain why you want to destroy that distinction, and subvert the intent of the clause.
As for your question, I don't know what WA's plan is to prevent that, nor can I find anything that dictates that they need one. The architecture of the republic laid out in the Constitution makes each state a sovereign government, able to exercise within it's own borders any power that was not transferred to the national government. With power comes responsibility, and the resonsibility for enforcing those laws falls on the state that enacted them. A state may enter into agreements with neighboring states to cooperate in enforcement of those laws, but they are not obligated to commit resources to enforcing the laws of a neighboring state.
If the state of Washington wants to permit the posession of marijuana, an the state of Oregon does not, then it is the responsibility of the state of Oregon to enforce that restriction on it's citizens.
If enough states what to prohibit the posession of marijuana and grant the federal government the authority to enforce that prohibition they can propose and ratify an amendment to that effect, and then the federal government will be legitimately authorized to exercise that power. The is the purpose of the process of amendment. Calling it an exercise in "regulating commerce" is a corrpution of the intent of the Commerce Clause, and frankly it's bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I don’t see marijuana anywhere mentioned inside Amendment X.
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms.
You think dopeheads and cleaning up after their bs is *funny*?
Wow. Completely oblivious.
Doesn't say anything about manufacturing, buying, or selling them though, does it?
If they want to draw a sharp line between the two - then they need to police it.
“I don’t know what WA’s plan is to prevent that”
Then I’m not going to support their plan. Sorry. There’s reality and there’s the ‘cross your fingers and hope it all works out’ plan that’s going to work out so spectacularly well for WA.
“The architecture of the republic laid out in the Constitution makes each state a sovereign government, able to exercise within it’s own borders any power that was not transferred to the national government.”
Power to regulate controlled goods is an enumerated power of the federal government. You’ve studiously avoided this argument throughout.
“With power comes responsibility”,
Where is WA going to take the responsibility for increased drug use and dependency? Is the rest of the nation going to have to foot the bill for treatment because of Obamacare?
“If the state of Washington wants to permit the posession of marijuana, an the state of Oregon does not, then it is the responsibility of the state of Oregon to enforce that restriction on it’s citizens.”
Yet, with the Obamacare mandate, other states will be forced to pay for WA’s healthcare. States are not ‘independent entities’, and the welfare of WA has become the problem for everyone else.
“Calling it an exercise in “regulating commerce” is a corrpution of the intent of the Commerce Clause, and frankly it’s bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that.”
As usual - libertarians are side by side seeking the camel under the tent - let the states push in liberal cause de jour in a few states, then force it on the nation. Frankly, conservatives are sick of it.
But, we know it’s all going to collapse. The more hippy dippy bullshit you pile on, the faster. So good luck.
If you are a citizen of the state of Washington, that is your choice to make, and I say good for you.
BTW your beloved hero Madison also believed that the federal government could never raise an army larger than the militias. Seems like he was a prophet. The BOR was necessary and it’s a damn good thing we have it.
Are you willing to concede that the right to bear arms is explicit? As opposed to your dope possession nonsense?
Then WA can pay for their own treatment plans and not seek a handout from Texas.
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.