Posted on 09/03/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by atomic_dog
I haven't seen that argument made yet on this thread. But I'm only a third of the way through. Maybe someone will, huh?
Oh my. Did you think marijuana was prohibited because it kills people?
1,500,000 drug arrests each year. In seven years, that's over 10 million people arrested.
Drug raids are extremely dangerous. Though regrettable, six accidental deaths in 10 million arrests is not a pattern.
I really don't have the time today.
Perhaps it's as simple as the user not wanting to smoke. Smoking is offensive to lots of people (including me). Maybe it's cleaner and easier to just drink your drugs.
I was under the impression that the 18th amendment was desired, not required. After all, President Jefferson and his Secretary of State James Madison (who wrote the Commerce Clause), used the power of the Commerce Clause to prohibit alcohol sales to the Indian tribes in 1802.
Maybe these two Founding Fathers were confused about their power to regulate commerce, huh?
Don't be an idiot.
Also, you are still confused about the term "regulating" and the term "prohibiting". One allows action while the other stops it. Until you understand the difference, STFU.
Nah, lots of kids smoke cigarettes. I say they prefer to drink (rather than smoke pot) because drinking is legal and socially acceptable.
The 'power to regulate commerce,' here meant to be granted, was that power to regulate commerce which previously existed in the States. But what was that power? The States were, unquestionably, supreme; and each possessed that power over commerce, which is acknowledged to reside in every sovereign State. The definition and limits of that power are to be sought among the features of international law; and, as it was not only admitted, but insisted on by both parties, in argument, that, 'unaffected by a state of war, by treaties, or by municipal regulations, all commerce among independent States was legitimate,' there is no necessity to appeal to the oracles of the jus commune for the correctness of that doctrine. The law of nations, regarding man as a social animal, pronounces all commerce legitimate in a state of peace, until prohibited by positive law. The power of a sovereign state over commerce, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure. And since the power to prescribe the limits to its freedom, necessarily implies the power to determine what shall remain unrestrained, it follows, that the power must be exclusive; it can reside but in one potentate; and hence, the grant of this power carries with it the whole subject, leaving nothing for the State to act upon.
-- Gibbons v Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
This landmark case was decided in Chief Justice (and Founding Father) John Marshall's U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3295
How would you like your tax dollars taken from you to provide healthcare, drugs, rehab, welfare etc. to drug user? If we legalized anything today that would happen. Dismantle the welfare state first, then come back to me about legalization.
Oh, by all means. Let's give preference to the opinion of a 21st century economist over a Founding Father and Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to defining the meaning of the word "to regulate" in the Commerce Clause.
Redefining and Expanding the Courts role beyond it's designed limits while the ink on the Constitution was still drying is hardly a noteworthy accomplishment.
Gibbons v. Ogden was a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Marshall, the chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, nominated by President John Adams, was joined in that unanimous decision by:
Justice William Johnson, who was nominated by President Thomas Jefferson.
Justice Thomas Todd, who served in the Revolutionary War at age 16 and was nominated by President Thomas Jefferson.
Justice Gabriel Duvall, who was nominated by President James Madison.
Justice Joseph Story, author of the revered Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, who was nominated by President James Madison.
Justice Smith Thompson, who was nominated by President James Monroe.
Justice Bushrod Washington, the nephew of George Washington, who was nominated by President John Adams.
Poor you.
The landmark case, Gibbons v Ogden, defined the Commerce Clause not redefined it (unless you can find an earlier definition). I would much rather the courts determine the original meaning than the original intent.
Restrain?! Why didn't the Supreme Court appointments of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison realize that prohibitions are unconstimatushunal!
You can run from it, but you cannot hide.
It seems to me that if they wanted the Commerce Clause limited to removing restrictions to trade among the several states they would have worded it differently. Something like, "Congress has the power to remove restrictions to trade among the several states".
Ya think?
Has no connotations of PROHIBITING commerce. Especially at a time when interstate tariffs and trade barriers were a serious issue? Come on... let's not be ridiculous.
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.