The President's Patriot Problem

Fox News ^ | 10-24-03 | Frank Gaffney, Jr.

[Brian S]

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Attorney General

[mrsmith]

This is as bizarre as some of the articles that attack Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

[proxy_user]

Both the Libertarian and Constitutionalist wings of the conservative movement have substantial differences with Mr. Ashcroft. Although these wings are small numerically, they are influential and a source of new ideas for the conservative movement.

Of course, there's always the option of forgetting about ideas, principles, and intellectual consistency, and just going with the flow. But if you do that, you eventually end up like the Democrats.

[tinamina]

Sounds to me like Grover Norquist may be a convert to Islam. Hope it gets disclosed publicly if he is.

[mrsmith]

The "Constitutionalist" wing is one hundred per cent behind Ashcroft.

He has done an excellent job of upholding the Constitution and demonstrated great understanding of, and respect for, it.
In very difficult circumstance I might add.

[CodeMonkey]

He has done an excellent job of upholding the Constitution and demonstrated great understanding of, and respect for, it.

Then why is he violating the 10th amendment by enforcing federal drug laws inside California's borders against medical marijuana users? The US Constitution is very specific: the federal government cannot regulate any intrastate commerce. That authority resides exclusively with the state. If a state wants to legalize intrastate drug trafficing, there is nothing Ashcroft can do, unless he wants to make toilet paper out of the constitution's separation of powers and jurisdictions.

[mrsmith]

There is a Tenth Amendment case to be made for leaving regulation of non-commercial recreational marijuana to the states- like most vices- but not for putting medical practise outside the purview of the Feds under the commerce doctrine ( especially not as it is applied by the courts- which he has to obey).

"Constitutionalists" realize the Attorney General is not the one to look to to institute a sweeping correction in the understanding of federalism- that would be done by the elected legislature or possibly the courts that screwed things up in the first place.

The medical field is heavily regulated by the Feds, libertarians and liberals make a mistake to try to put marijuana use into that category. It invites Fed intervention and further erosion of federalism.

[eno_]

Sounds to me like Grover Norquist may be a convert to Islam. Hope it gets disclosed publicly if he is.

Right. He is also a crypto-Comuunist, on the payroll of George Soros, and he is a secret ACLU plant in the conservative movement.

I have some headgear to sell you, at a reasonable price.

[eno_]

On what theory is the relationship between a doctor and patient anywhere even within 1000 miles of federal authority to meddle in? Is there even a shred of a snippet of langauge in the Constitution or, for that matter, in our Common Law heritage that makes that plausible?

[mrsmith]

" "Constitutionalists" realize the Attorney General is not the one to look to to institute a sweeping correction in the understanding of federalism- that would be done by the elected legislature or possibly the courts that screwed things up in the first place. "

Uh, I'm obviously not the person to defend the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause doctrine to you.

[eno_]

So how to read that?

"I, Mr. Smith, buy in to the New Deal rape of the Constitution because, as a bluenose Church Lady type of Republican, I find it convenient because I can meddle where I want to - to hell with small matters like Federalism. And, by the way, I have the intellectual candlepower of a nightlight and won't even try to defend my hypocrisy."

[eno_]

As for the AG's role, he has gobs of discretion, and he is under no obligation to advocate for continuing prior follies, especially those of the FDR administration if that (R) designation means anything. He, and the Solicitor General, could be a lot more active in defending the Constitution.

[mrsmith]

An aggressive inability to comprehend written words.

How attractive.

[eno_]

So how else to look at your words?

If the New Deal constitutional rape selectively acceptable to you, how about the assault weapons ban? Would you support if repealing the ban would make JBTs pee their pants?

What about abortion? A settled matter?

As I recall, this site is about returning the nation to the state of being Free and a Republic. Is there no fundamental work to be done on how the Constitution is currently read?

I invited you to provide even one word either from the Constitution or the Common Law in which context it was written that makes it even remotely OK for our federal government to meddle in medicine. Here is a hint: Who licenses your doctor, and why do you think that is the way it is?

[moodyskeptic]

Did you catch Ashcroft with Tony Snow on Rush'd Thursday program?

Correct me if I heard wrong, but he said the burden of proof to attain arrest/surveillance warrants in the Homeland terror war is much higher than the current threshold for drug/white collar/mob criminal warrants. He said it requires two written grants of warrant after personal review by federal judges, the highest level of screening to date.

He also said that our Senator Feinstein, a shrill liberal Bush hater, asked the ACLU for any records of Americans who have had their civil rights abused by the new laws as ammo for a Bush/Ashcroft assault... and they could provide NOT ONE INSTANCE. He thanked her for honestly reporting this fact.

Is this true, Freepers?

[mrsmith]

"how else to look at your words? "

That it is the duty of the AG in our system to try to comport with court rulings.

There are countries where that is not the case. Try your "freedom lite" there under a Furher, Caesar, 'El Jefe' or whomever you think should have unbridled power to defend your rights.

[eno_]

If you read the examples of abuses in the many threads here on FR, the main problem is that your communication, financial, medical, and other records can all be easily inspected without a warrant.

If all these records were encrypted with my key, that I could readily destroy, rendering the records permanently irretrievable, THEN I might trust what a government goon says about my privacy.

[mrsmith]

The part about Feinstein and the ACLU is true, and that the standards are higher is true.

About the "two warrants", I've never seen or heard that. I don't know. It might be true in some limited area, but I think you misheard.

[eno_]

You don't get it.

Compare our current Freedom Lite (a product of Homeland Security) with what the Founders fought for.

Is it worth defending? Is it worth your son's life to fight for Ashcroft's vision of what freedoms are safe in the hands of the people?

It is not worth my life, much less my son's life.

Wonder why recruitment is in serious trouble?