Posted on 01/15/2007 2:07:51 PM PST by ellery
Rather than people like Clarence Thomas who merely had an opinion about it 230 years later. Which was my point.
"Citizens could vote with their feet and take themselves and their wealth elsewhere if subject to abuse."
Yeah. If the citizens of one state didn't like the restrictions of expressing their religion, or didn't like the pornography laws they could move to another state that suited them better.
No. Wait. They can't.
The U.S. Supreme Court "incorporated" the first amendment and applied it to every state. Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says the firsts amendment means, it means that for every state.
Well, well, well. Here the Founders were worried about Congress "joining" the states into one entity and it turns out that the U.S. Supreme Court did it. I take it, then, that you favor repeal of the 14th amendment, thereby returning us to federalism?
Ah. So the power could be lodged there. Well then, what's your point?
Madison is saying that interstate conflicts can be resolved "by the states themselves" (the intended way) or through Congress. Most interstate conflicts ARE resolved this way. You're simply stating the obvious.
Save your time. Talk to a brick. It's smarter and more willing to listen.
This is about Freedom! America! Liberty! The U.S. Constitution! The Bill of Rights!
These aren't a bunch of potheads looking to legalize and validate their recreational drug use. These are patriots, fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way!
So you watch that sarcasm there, you, you, communitarian.
According to the article, hemp is grown a mere 20 miles away across the Canadian border from this guy. He can hop in his pick-up truck and, within an hour, have all the raw hemp his little heart desires.
Absolute control, or total anarchy. It's not hard to see what's wrong with that argument. It's also not hard to see why the bureaucrats try to use it.
You work for the federal government, don't you?
Madison is saying what he said - that the power to regulated commerce was "not intended for the positive purposes of the general government". It was never intended to become the "catch-all" blank check it has become.
ping
Be careful there. You putting words in his mouth.
Read your own quote. Madison is talking about commerce conflicts between states, not some general federal regulation involving interstate commerce among all the states.
"It was never intended to become the "catch-all" blank check it has become."
Yet Madison admits that the power could be lodged there. Again I ask. What's your point?
Going by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the substantial effects doctrine is a fraudulent exercise of power.
That wasn't STUPID, it was FUNNY!
Here we go with the humorless hemp pushers.
(Before we go around again, I'm amenable to some liberalization of drug laws. It WAS just humor...)
A professor of mine in law school said that the Commerce Clause wasn't a legal theory, but a talisman, which the Federal Government displayed whenever its power was questioned.
Me no understand.
"Only the federal government could effectively resolve and enforce the resolution of conflicts between states."
Oh baloney. States take their conflicts to federal court and the commerce conflicts are resolved there. Congress doesn't even get involved. That was the original intent since that was the pressing problem at the time.
"And he is indeed talking about commerce among all the states."
Just read your own cite, for crying out loud. Madison illustrates his point by saying, "by the importing States in taxing the non-importing". That's not commerce among all the states. That's an example he's giving of some states (the importing) committing an injustice (taxing) on some other states (the non-importing).
That has nothing to do with Congress passing some general commerce regulation on all the states.
"Going by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the substantial effects doctrine is a fraudulent exercise of power."
Going by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the substantial effects doctrine is not even relevant. It's only relevant when it comes to Congressional regulation.
The substantial effects doctrine is not relevant to the original intent of the Commerce Clause because it is not and never was part of that intent.
Your professor knew his conlaw, and the nature of federal bureaucracy.
Oh I know him quite well.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
You must be careful with this line of logic. You must admit that the gun-grabbers use the same argument, right?
Perhaps it would be more cost-efficient? Would you have any real objection to domestic production if farmers were subject to having the THC levels of their crops regularly tested by authorities?
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.