Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

False Federalism: In Gonzales v. Raich, itís the state thatís violating federalist principles.
National Review ^ | 6/8/05 | Wesley J. Smith

Posted on 06/08/2005 4:19:52 PM PDT by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: William Terrell
"I mean, do you agree with the concept of a "republic" in that its distinguishing feature is a constitution that defines the limits of the government within bounds?"

Of course. I believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government.

State constitutions define the limits of each state. That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

21 posted on 06/08/2005 9:57:56 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes ^
 Posted by robertpaulsen to KDD
On News/Activism ^ 06/08/2005 8:50:08 PM PDT · 1,075 of 1,083 ^


Let's be honest and open here. You're saying that the federal government has no business regulating any drug, recreational or prescription, and that it is up to each state to decide the issue.


_____________________________________




False Federalism: In Gonzales v. Raich, it's the state that's violating federalist principles. ^
 Posted by robertpaulsen to William Tell
On News/Activism ^ 06/08/2005 8:35:56 PM PDT · 18 of 19 ^

Do you have a problem with each state deciding how they want to live? Are you more comfortable with one set of laws that apply to every state?







Paulsen plays both ends.. Yet again
22 posted on 06/08/2005 10:04:41 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Then we agree that a constitution defines the operational bounds of a government. In order to do so, it defines the areas of sovereignty that administrators and elected officials may assume, by specifically naming powers, over the states and people, that they can wield.

You agree?

23 posted on 06/08/2005 10:24:25 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; Everybody; robertpaulsen

William Terrell:
"I mean, do you agree with the concept of a "republic" in that its distinguishing feature is a constitution that defines the limits of the government within bounds?"


_____________________________________


Of course. I believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government.
State constitutions define the limits of each state.
That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

21 robertpaulsen






Paulsen misunderstands & ignores the words of the US Constitution once again.

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers, clearly written, that all States have republican forms of government - wherein all judges & officials are pledged to support the US Constitution - notwithstanding any Thing in the Constitutions of any State to the Contrary.


24 posted on 06/08/2005 10:35:57 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

Absent federal laws to the contrary, the states are free to set their own. I've been consistent in my statements.


25 posted on 06/08/2005 11:12:29 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"Then we agree that a constitution defines the operational bounds of a government. In order to do so, it defines the areas of sovereignty that administrators and elected officials may assume, by specifically naming powers, over the states and people, that they can wield."

Yes. And those constitutions also define the rights protected.

26 posted on 06/08/2005 11:14:58 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government.
State constitutions define the limits of each state. That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers, clearly written, that all States have republican forms of government - wherein all judges & officials are bound by oath to support the US Constitution - notwithstanding any Thing in the Constitutions of any State to the Contrary.

Absent federal laws to the contrary, the states are free to set their own.

You: " -- believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government."
And that only: "State constitutions define the limits of each state."

I've been consistent in my statements.

Your own words quoted above show your logical inconsistencies.
Can you admit it?

27 posted on 06/09/2005 12:17:33 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes. And those constitutions also define the rights protected.

No. The federal constitution defines the sovereign powers of that government, beyond which it is not to stray. In a positive list of grants to a government, all not listed are therefore not granted.

You agree?

28 posted on 06/09/2005 10:42:08 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Does Oregon have the constitutional right to force the United States government to permit state doctors to assist patient suicides with federally controlled substances (narcotics)?

force to permit. The author doesn't notice how absurd that notion is.

29 posted on 06/09/2005 10:58:30 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy; William Terrell; yall

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


30 posted on 06/09/2005 11:23:11 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"The federal constitution defines the sovereign powers of that government, beyond which it is not to stray. In a positive list of grants to a government, all not listed are therefore not granted."

I agree.

31 posted on 06/09/2005 6:50:44 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
"force to permit. The author doesn't notice how absurd that notion is."

In a similar case, don't you remember how California forced the United States government to permit state doctors to "recommend" marijuana to their patients?

"California in particular has been at the legal forefront on the issue. A 1996 voter referendum, the Compassionate Use Act, allowed marijuana use by those who receive "the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."

"Federal health officials had told doctors who recommend or prescribe the substance could risk losing their medical license."

"A federal appeals court ruled against the government, saying in its ruling, "physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients." The Justice Department then appealed to the Supreme Court."

"Supreme Court justices on Tuesday rejected the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or even discussing the use of marijuana for their patients."

32 posted on 06/09/2005 6:59:36 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Since a republican government has its powers defined, and the reason those powers are defined is to limit the exercise of them over the areas of sovereignty held by the states and people, then a consitution that gives complete power of regulation and prohibition to the republican governemnt over every object, and activity related to that object, in the nation, one could say that it is no constitution, and does not limit the powers of that government. Therefore the government is not a republic.

Do you agree?

33 posted on 06/09/2005 8:29:27 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
... then a consitution that gives complete power of regulation and prohibition to the republican governemnt over every object, and activity related to that object, in the nation, one could say that it is no constitution, and does not limit the powers of that government. Therefore the government is not a republic."

I agree. Though I'm not familiar with any constitution that does that.

34 posted on 06/09/2005 8:39:51 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I agree. Though I'm not familiar with any constitution that does that.

This one. By decision of the US Supreme Court.

35 posted on 06/09/2005 8:54:10 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"By decision of the US Supreme Court"

By the same Court that recently struck down two highly publicized cases whereby it was concluded that Congress did NOT have the power to regulate commerce?

36 posted on 06/10/2005 6:00:37 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
By the same Court that recently struck down two highly publicized cases whereby it was concluded that Congress did NOT have the power to regulate commerce?

Oh, I see. The Supreme Court can determine what objects and activities related to those objects can be prohibited, even though, through their logic, any object can be prohibited, they can give a break to certain ones. That makes me feel better.

Since the Supreme Court is part of the republican government, too, what matters if they or Congress do the dirty deed?

37 posted on 06/10/2005 12:20:17 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"The Supreme Court can determine what objects and activities related to those objects can be prohibited"

Ever since Marbury v Madison, yes, the Supreme Court can determine if Congress exceeded its authority in Commerce Clause cases.

It is NOT true that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress "complete power of regulation and prohibition to the republican governemnt over every object, and activity related to that object, in the nation".

"Since the Supreme Court is part of the republican government, too, what matters if they or Congress do the dirty deed?"

I'm really not the one to talk to about these "conspiracy" theories.

38 posted on 06/10/2005 9:15:48 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson