Posted on 04/23/2005 7:45:06 PM PDT by publiusF27
Would you be antagonistic to the removal of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL (see above) FEDERAL anti-drug laws and replacing them with State anti-drug laws? Or to requiring the anti-drug laws be replaced by a REAL, LIVE, HONEST-TO-GOODNESS Constitutional Amendment?
I think publius27 said it best in his post #58.
Oh, I don't think James Madison would tell you that. He thought it was a good idea to use taxes as a means of regulating commerce with Foreign Nations -- he might be convinced to also extend that to interstate commerce.
In a letter to Joseph Cabell on September 18, 1828, Madison writes:
"Your late letter reminds me of our Conversation on the constitutionality of the power in Congs. to impose a tariff for the encouragmt. of Manufactures; and of my promise to sketch the grounds of the confident opinion I had expressed that it was among the powers vested in that Body."
"and that the power to regulate interstate commerce was intended to prevent trade wars"
True. But those disputes were expected to be resolved by the states themselves by taking their case directly to federal court without Congressional intervention (refer to the Dormant Commerce Clause).
And why is it that you believe Congress may not regulate the interstate transportation of cannabis or firearms?
The victimized state could sue the polluting state in Federal court. THAT would be Constitutional, and I would be in favor of it. Drug laws do not translate from this example, however. Just as Ohio (unconstitutionally!) locks up people with firearms in their trunks who are ONLY travelling through, so any state could do the same with drugs. I'm not on my small-government high horse today; I'm just pointing out that SOME THINKING SHOULD BE DONE about hewing STRICTLY to the Constitution, whether through separation of powers or through strict amendment procedures. There ARE Constitutional ways around the current mess (Hannity: "Neal wants crackheads everywhere out on the streets!" Audience -- shouting back: "THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW!!!!").
Hmmmm. Starting in 1884, Congress was banning the interstate transportation of diseased livestock, insect pests injurious to plant crops, even diseased nursery stock. This was unconstitutional?
Because their purpose in so regulating has nothing to do with commerce.
They are regulating in order to prohibit, -- they have no delegated power to prohibit the ownership or use of arms or drugs.
The second amendment is a restriction on the federal government only. Now, if the federal government gets to the point where it "refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest", what makes you think it will honor the second amendment?
I doubt their finding will read that way. It will be more along the lines of "substantial effect".
The law you site in Ohio is one I would strongly disagree with. My problem with the constitutionality of regulating drugs is not so much the constitutionality of it at all, but rather the consequences if we don't, as stated in post #58.
The have the power to regulate the interstate commerce of arms and drugs.
If the possession or use of arms or drugs has a substantial effect on their interstate regulatory efforts, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to write and enforce laws to fulfill their regulatory function.
Ahhhh but would the semi-auto, custom tuned rifles in my safe.... BE safe with your mindset? How about my semiauto handguns with the high-cap magazines I keep for self defense? I know a whole LOT of "hunters" who vote liberal RAT every election saying that the gun bans the dims want won't really attach to their lawful hunting rifles and who really needs an ugly plastic gun with a big magazine anyway???? That's the attitude of the Bubbas who voted Clinton into office and almost voted Kerry into the same office.
Because their purpose in so regulating has nothing to do with commerce.
They are regulating in order to prohibit, -- they have no delegated power to prohibit the ownership or use of arms or drugs.
If the possession or use of arms or drugs has a substantial effect on their interstate regulatory efforts, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to write and enforce laws to fulfill their regulatory function.
So they claim, but their actual intent is to prohibit.
And why is it that you want to believe Congress may regulate/prohibit the interstate transportation of cannabis or firearms?
Do you not support & defend our RKBA's?
ExSoldier wrote:
I know a whole LOT of "hunters" who vote liberal RAT every election saying that the gun bans the dims want won't really attach to their lawful hunting rifles and who really needs an ugly plastic gun with a big magazine anyway???
______________________________________
The second amendment is a restriction on the federal government only.
68 paulson
All the hunters I know are Bush-Cheney men.
and who really needs an ugly plastic gun with a big magazine anyway????
That's what the deer were complaining about when I showed up, and the bipod, too. ;)
Yes, they are prohibiting the interstate transportation of guns and drugs. To regulate includes to prohibit. Congress has that power. This is old news.
Guess what? If you don't think Congress should be prohibiting the interstate transportation of guns and drugs, you have the opportunity every two years to vote out the people who wrote those laws, and vote in someone to change them.
"And why is it that you want to believe Congress may regulate/prohibit the interstate transportation of cannabis or firearms?"
It's a fact, that's all. "Want to believe" has nothing to do with it.
"Do you not support & defend our RKBA's?"
You bet. But not through the second amendment.
Originally the entire Bill of Rights was a restraint on the Federal gov't only. However the adoption and subsequent interpretations of the 14th Amendment had the effect of linking the Bill of Rights all the way down to the States. What happens if the state militias get Federalized as happens every time there's a war in some desert needs to be fought? It's important to remember that the militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is NOT the same thing as the national guard as it exists in states today. Those troops were created in (IIRC) 1913, quite a few years after the original 2nd Amendment was drafted following a long and bloody war of revolution.
I was referring to the voting populace who manages to ignore the RAT platform of total unilateral personal disarmament by assuming that their personal HUNTING firearms will be left alone. Not so. But, by the time they awaken to the dangers, it'll be way too late.
Then why was Kerry running around the countryside waving a shotgun in a very unsafe manner everytime he could locate a camera lens....and why were there so many rural Hunters out there supporting him? Ever see the NRA's response to those folks along the rural highways? A Billboard: It has a French Poodle all dolled up to look like Kerry and the caption reads: That DOG just don't HUNT!
Seems like most of the responsible hunters and other gun folks finally got it, because IIRC, the great state of West-by-God Virginia went RED for only the second time in something like the last eighty years on the strength of the gun issue alone. Here's a state where the first day of deer season is a school holiday.
I knew I was forgetting one, but couldn't remember it. Grand daughters birthday might have had something to do with that.
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.