Where there's smoke, there's Hempfest

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | August 17, 2007 | CASEY MCNERTHNEY

[robertpaulsen]

"to regulate something that did not cross a state line and originated in the state in question."

The federal government has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of anything their little hearts desire. And the power "to regulate" includes the power to prohibit. I'm assuming we agree up to this point.

But what if some completely in-state activity (it need not be commerce) has a substantial effect on Congress' efforts to regulate interstate? Are you saying Congress has no power over that?

Congress (via the FAA) regulates the interstate commerce of goods and passengers in the airways. They set takeoff and landing patterns, cruising altitudes and speeds, common radio frequencies, pilot licensing, etc. What about the private pilot flying totally within his state? The federal government has no control over his flying until he has a substantial effect on their interstate efforts (ie., when he flies into controlled airspace).

You're saying he should be free to fly wherever and whenever he wishes? I don't think you really believe that.

Congress has a congressional finding (in the Controlled Substances Act) which says that local growing of marijuana has a substantial effect on their efforts to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana.

Think about it for a minute. Two adjacent states, A & B. If marijuana is legal in state A and legal in state B, then the only time it's illegal is the instant it crosses the state line. Since marijuana is fungible, no one know where it came from.

Now, maybe you think you found a loophole in the system or that you can play "gotcha" games with the federal government, but it doesn't work that way. The Founding Fathers didn't give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce only to have that power undermined and subverted by the states or individuals within the state.

Maybe Congress shouldn't be regulating marijuana or drugs in general. You can certainly argue that point. But to say that Congress can't regulate drugs is a non-starter. It is constitutional.

[robertpaulsen]

You look at the photos and you have to ask youself, "Do these people expect us to take them seriously?"

It's the same question I ask myself when looking a pictures fron any "Gay Pride" parade.

"I haven't found the article on industrial and household uses of HEMP yet."

Well, keep looking. It's got to be there somewhere. It's call "Hempfest" not "Recreationalmarijuanafest" for a reason.

[robertpaulsen]

"through the doctrine of “incorporation”

It took the U.S. Supreme Court 150 years to start that process under the guise of the 14th amendments's due process clause. Suprisingly, you'll find a whole bunch of supporters of incorporation right here on this forum -- some who support centralized federal government power even insist that the Bill of Rights always applied to the states!

"Incorporation" has done more to destroy federalism (and this country) than the Commerce Clause could ever hope to. At least we have some control over Congress.

"The Federal Supreme Court did not utter a peep when the Supreme Court of California declared there was no right to keep and bear arms in that State’s Constitution."

The California State Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms. At least, I couldn't find it. You're free to try.

Now, would you force the citizens of California to protect that right if they choose not to? Would you force them to protect the right to an abortion, also? The right to homosexual sodomy? The right to freedom from religion? The right to burn the American flag?

Or should these issues be decided by each state (as the Founding Fathers intended)?

[tpaine]

I would beware of a man who says he is conservative or wants to champion liberties and yet keeps voting for bigger and bigger government, more thousands of pages of regulations (each having the weight of law) published each week in the Federal Register, and perpetuating a tax system that destroys financial privacy.

Thanks. -- We've got a prime example of a non-conservative, non-libertarian posting such nonsense here on FR every day. -- Keep up the good fight.

[tpaine]

what exactly does the Federal Constitution do? How does one re-interpret the federal Constitution, a document that regulates the relationship of each state to the other and to the federal government, --

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts

Quote:

"--- the power of Congress to "well-regulate" commerce among the states does not include the power to forbid or prohibit commerce.
James Madison described a direct parallel between the regulation of the militia and the regulation of commerce when he asked:
How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other points? . . . How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided without a similar knowledge of some internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation --"

[tpaine]

Was it, [the Constitution] for example "intended to protect our individual rights from state or local government infringements" --- even though to this very day, while the Supreme Court has expanded free speech to include nude dancing and flag burning, and they have extended the First Amendment to the whole of state and local government through the doctrine of "incorporation", they have not yet seen fit to give the same expansive incorporation to the Second Amendment?

Yes. -- As per Article VI, our supreme law -- [the US Constitution as Amended by the BOR's], -- was intended to protect our individual rights, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

The U.S. Supreme Court [for 100 years] ignored those clear words under the guise that the 14th amendment only applied to ex-slaves.
And a whole bunch of supporters of statism here on this forum, -- still want to ignore our rights to due process under law, -- in favor of the theory that majority rule in State and local communities will somehow support our individual rights. -- California, Chicago and New York gun 'laws' show the stupidity of that position.

"Incorporation" is not needed. Restoration of our Constitutional principle that all officials, fed/state/local, MUST support and defend our individual rights/freedoms is what's needed.