Posted on 09/03/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by atomic_dog
So "to regulate" commerce with foreign Nations, therefore, did not allow the federal government to prohibit trade with them? You're saying Jefferson and Madison (who wrote the damn thing) didn't know what they were doing?
Maybe your definition is wrong, huh?
Nice try at an obfuscation though.
We signed a treaty with Europe in 1807 prohibiting trade? Nice try.
"'Jefferson's Embargo' of 1807-1808, which cut all trade with Europe, was attacked on the ground that the power to regulate commerce was the power to preserve it, not the power to destroy it. This argument was rejected by Judge Davis of the United States District Court for Massachusetts in the following words: ''A national sovereignty is created [by the Constitution]. Not an unlimited sovereignty, but a sovereignty, as to the objects surrendered and specified, limited only by the qualification and restrictions, expressed in the Constitution. Commerce is one of those objects."
Which works in favor of MY argument that "regulate" does not equate with "prohibit".
Yes it does. Right up to the point where that argument was rejected by Judge Davis.
Did you miss that part?
Sorry.
dictum schmictum -- Jefferson's Embargo stood as constitutional law.
Regulating is not prohibiting. Period. End of story.
Well, we've agreed that the definition of "to regulate" includes "to prohibit" -- therefore, to regulate trade between the states includes prohibiting trade.
Unless you're trying to tell me that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same sentence.
"Regulating is not prohibiting."
Correct. Regulating means a number of things, including prohibiting.
Actually, no we didn't. And no, it doesn't.
You make great points about legalization.
Consider the source...
Our federal government has *never* been given the privilege by We the People to tax items to the point of prohibition.
They assumed the privilege, and currently the federal anti-marijuana laws are based on the interstate commerce clause.
Our individual, inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution are derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, first and foremost our own bodies. If the government can tell you what you can, and can't put into your own body, then you do *not* own your body, but are simply renting it from the federal government.
*Any* federal laws legislating marijuana use to the point of prohibition are entirely unconstitutional, and furthermore, We the People do not recognize federal laws that infringe on our individual, inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution.
Concerning the upcoming state ballot measures to legalize marijuana, one would hope that not only state/local police would stand off vs. the federal authorities, but also that some of the federal authorities would defect to the state/local side. And one would also hope that with proper funding, Blackwater folks could be employed to defend We the People. Ideally, bloodshed would be kept to a minimum, but I'd not shed a single tear over any federal authorities deaths due to their attempt at enforcing unconstitutional legislation. In that scenario, the federal authorities are *supposed* to die, and We the People are supposed to win. Ideally, in the end, the good guys win.
The federal government has the constitutional power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises". I see no limit on that power. Do you? Can you please point it out where it adds, "but not too much"?
"If the government can tell you what you can, and can't put into your own body, then you do *not* own your body"
They're not telling you what you can and can't put into your own body. It's not illegal to do drugs. Go ahead, poison yourself. No one cares.
It is, however, illegal to possess or sell certain drugs.
"*Any* federal laws legislating marijuana use to the point of prohibition are entirely unconstitutional"
Violating what part, pray tell?
"We the People do not recognize federal laws that infringe on our individual, inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution."
Sure we do. We do it all the time. The federal government (FCC) regulates communications, and there are certain restrictions on speech that apply (obscene, indecent, and profane programming, for example).
Gasp! What happened to our first amendment rights? The sky is falling!
"but I'd not shed a single tear over any federal authorities deaths due to their attempt at enforcing unconstitutional legislation"
Not too familiar with the Supremacy Clause, huh? And here I thought you were some constitutional scholar or something, the way you've been spouting off about this or that being unconstitutional.
Any state official who is part of legalizing marijuana in his state for ANY reason should be tried, convicted and hanged for sedition, if not treason. You're suggesting a second Civil War to legalize dope? Insanity.
Sure they can lay and collect taxes. If they'd like, they can even devise a tax scheme where you're required to have a tax stamp. But the burden is upon them to print such tax stamps. If this is not the case, then the government can require tax stamps to breathe or have children, and simply not print any tax stamps. Great, creative plan, and no one will notice their actually making it illegal. Just simply taxing it, since they're only allowed to tax. Again, NO ONE will notice. That's the key part.
Some folks find marijuana to be of medicinal benefit. They need to possess it in order to consume it. I'm doubting you're sincerity in this particular assertion, but whatever.
"Violating what part?" Again, you fail to understand the difference between rights and privileges. It's not, the government gets to do whatever it wants, EXCEPT what it is prohibited to do in the Constitution. It's the exact opposite, meaning the government ONLY gets the privileges We the People have provided them. The burden is on *you* to show where in the Constitution the federal government has been provided the privilege to legislate what we can, and can't put into our bodies. I'm not disputing they assume this power, I'm stating flat out that this privilege is *not* granted to them in the Constitution.
Any state official who does not *order* the state police to defend the citizens of that state, even if that means battling to the death with the feds, should immediately be removed from office.
I'm not suggesting Civil War. I'm suggesting the federal government learns its proper place, even if that requires bloodshed on their part.
And you also seem to be under the faulty impression that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is, and isn't Constitutional. That's something else you won't find in the Constitution, along with the lack of the privilege of our federal government telling us what we can, and can't put in our bodies.
If you need help in forming a proper perspective, think "Free Republic", then "Rigid Principles", because at one time, Republicans did in fact believe in a "Free Republic", and having "Rigid Principles", rather than meeting the Democrats half-way with their socialist agenda.
My vision, which so happens to be aligned with the Constitution, gets the government out of our lives to the point that it would take generations for the Democrats to ever have the ability to inflict their socialist will on us again. I'm sure you know this, but marijuana was made illegal under the same premise as making machine guns illegal.
Say hello to Matsuidon when you get there.
Fine. Then don't say they can't.
"Some folks find marijuana to be of medicinal benefit. They need to possess it in order to consume it. I'm doubting you're sincerity in this particular assertion, but whatever."
Words mean things. You went on and on about "owning your own body" to the point of rambling. I corrected you in the hope that you would get back on topic, which was the government regulating the possession and sales of certain recreational drugs.
"I'm not disputing they assume this power, I'm stating flat out that this privilege is *not* granted to them in the Constitution."
It's a power, not a privilege. And Congress has used to power of the Commerce Clause to regulate (in this case, prohibit) the interstate commerce of some drugs. Congress has used this power to prohibit commerce since the early 1800's. James Madison, who wrote the damn thing, had no problem using it for this purpose.
So don't tell me they don't have the power. They do. You just don't like how they're using that power. Get 51% to agree with you and the drug laws will disappear.
"Any state official who does not *order* the state police to defend the citizens of that state"
Need I remind you that the state official took an oath of office? An oath that says he will "preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution"? Federal law trumps state law. Every time.
"I'm suggesting the federal government learns its proper place"
And I've already suggested that you become familiar with Article VI, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) which you have obviously not done.
"And you also seem to be under the faulty impression that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is, and isn't Constitutional."
Faulty? Geez Louise. Get educated.
In the 1803 landmark case Marbury v Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.
"I'm sure you know this, but marijuana was made illegal under the same premise as making machine guns illegal"
In 1937, yeah. But our current laws were passed under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. It's a waste of my time to be arguing old laws. What's next, slavery?
Some talk the talk. Others walk the walk.
If you'll re-read my first post, I never said they couldn't lay and collect taxes. Simply re-read what I wrote rather than me re-typing it.
I won't re-type the paragraph about "owning our own bodies" either, nor will I re-type the cogent argument concerning where our indivdual, inherent rights are derived from.
Congress has abused the Commerce Clause since the early 1800's, including James Madison, who wrote the damn thing!
Furthermore, I don't need 51%. We live in a Free Republic, not a Democracy, the primary difference being in our Free Republic you do *not* get to vote to take away individual, inherent rights.
I've read the Supremacy Clause, and I don't believe it negates the rest of the Constitution, as you seem to imply.
And Federal Law doesn't trump state law every time. Check out all of the medical marijuana laws in several states. Check out the legalization ballot in Nevada and Alaska, and the recent laws passed in Colorado. All of those states are ready and willing to trump any federal laws. The ball's in the fed's court. And they don't seem to be ready and willing to fight this fight.
This shows precedent that state laws trump federal laws. Unless it needs to be like this for a certain number of years. How about 10 ? 20 ? 50 ? How soon until one considers it to have "always been like this" ?
Geez Louise. The old 1803 case brought up again. I will repeat the assertion that the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional, and furthermore, currently, and in most times, juries are far more reliable in determining what is, and isn't Constitutional. That is when they're allowed to hear about the Constitution.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is the culmination of several unconstitutional acts before it that were only made possible by the ever-changing propoganda towards marijuana. Why was it ever changing ? Because folks would have to be complete idiots to believe it turned you into an ax murderer, communist, or rapist. But Anslinger sure tried pretty hard to convince us of the evils, the only one sticking thus far being the "gateway theory", which could only be convincing to folks concerned with irresponsible teenagers, who shouldn't be using these substances in the first place. But it's nice for them to have inaminate objects to project blame to, since at this point in history, teaching kids individual responsibility isn't that high on the list. If individual responsiblity were important, politicians wouldn't be able to use the "for the children" defense, and maybe they'd then focus on their own "for the children" offenses.
This issue is no different than the gun rights issues. I understand Democrats have a vision of utopia where if guns were illegal, all would be well. It's a nice vision in some theories, but that vision translated into legislation (including requiring a CCW) is unconstitutional, even with the absence of the redundant 2nd amendment. I also understand that some Republicans (who forget what a Republic is) have a vision of utopia where if marijuana was illegal, all would be well. Again, these personal visions are ok to have, but they are in no way Constitutional.
Simply look at the genesis of the gun laws and the drug laws. That's about as shady of a time in our history that we've had. A huge skeleton in our historical closet that we've never came to terms with at a national level. The changes will come from the local level on up to the federal level, regardless of what you or I have to say about it. The quickest way towards national "on paper" legalization would be for the feds to step up the prosecution attempts on medical users in the several states. That's all the public needs to see, i.e., the feds performing no-knock searches, taking away ill individuals from their families, friends, and good-paying jobs, to be incarcerated and raped, all because they threw a seed in some dirt, or even worse, made a brownie.
If these substances were that big of an issue to society, then all members of all 3 branches would be tested regularly, not to mention the judges, lawyers, and police officers across this country who get busted for usage all the while contributing towards their prohibition.
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.