Posted on 10/23/2007 4:09:07 AM PDT by IrishMike
As far as “drug regulation” goes, the federal government claims authorithy to regulate drugs under the New Deal “substantial effects” doctrine. Clarence Thomas is well on record as considering this an illegitimate exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause.
Legislative restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality DOES NOT EQUAL government censorship of our media.
Can't agree totally on jury nullification - since your John Jay's quote would make all laws meaningless, while making every jury a law unto itself.
But on cultural censorship - as opposed to political censorship - the founding father obviously did not believe walking down the street naked or public sex was a Constitutional right. The reason federal government did not involve itself in regulating culture was because they left it to local government to did so unimpeded by federal legislatures, courts or executives.
Yes, they do equal censorship. Period.
You maybe need to read a bit more about nullification.
“And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.”
Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia,” 1782
Clarence Thomas writing for the majority""Congress made a value judgment that marijuana had "no currently accepted medical use." It was not the province of the Court to usurp this value judgment made by the legislature. Thus, it was wrong for the Ninth Circuit to hold that the Controlled Substances Act did contain a medical necessity defense. It was also wrong for the Ninth Circuit to order the district court to fashion a more limited injunction that would take into account the fact that marijuana was necessary for certain people to obtain relief from symptoms of chronic illnesses."
That’s his take on the 9th’s authority in the matter of deciding “currently accepted medical use”. That’s a disagreement between two federal branches, Congress and the 9th Circuit Court. How did he vote in the case of Gonzales v Raich, on federal authority to override California’s MM laws, hmmm?
But I do believe that in today's balkanized America and with the jury selection system put in place by Liberal lawyers, widespread acceptance of nullification would bring us even further closer to the level of third world justice.
Bullshit
"Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."
-Clarence Thomas
Gonzales v Raich
... your case only deals with conflict between state and federal regulations when no commerce is involved, and Thomas basically insisted possession of small quantities doesn’t mean commerce.
When it comes to the constitutionality of federal drug regulations, if you rule in favor on one you accept the entire premise that they are can be constitutional.
From Lopez
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
Current federal drug laws fall squarely within that "standard". Congress claims authority to enact the Controlled Substances Act under that "substantial effects" test.
You might. Personally, I'm finding the argument that if Congress can find the authority to regulate something, no matter how limited the scope of that regulation may be under the Constitution, then that means their authority in the matter has no limits to be counterintuitive in the context of a federal government with strictly limited and enumerated powers. Any federal authority "can be" constitutional if the Constitution is amended to grant it. Until that happens, the Constitution is as it was, and the power it grants the federal government is only what was intended by those who made that original grant of power.
The U.S. still has a constitution?
And still on the board and in play are the original three - The Federal Reserve, NSA wiretapping and the war in Iraq.
Nice spin, but so far all you have is a cherry picked half-truth, and a bucketful of speculation. That hard evidence on federal drug regulation is that you have to accept the liberal “living document” New Deal Commerce Clause if you want the drug war.
-and the reason for that was that they legalized abortion through the Supreme Court and now they have to protect that court at all costs - or they will not be able to kill the unborn as they are wont.
They could but I doubt that the thought to do so ever occured to them. Now that the Dems have shown the way I have no doubt that if Clinton is elected we'll see the same tactics the Dems perfected used against them.
I have to disagree with your assessment that the partisan borking of judicial appointments has become the norm on both sides. The republicans NEVER even came close to the kind of slander of judicial nominees that is norm for the democrats anytime a GOP president appoints someone.
During the last 6 years of Clinton they didn't have to. They just didn't schedule hearings. The Dems are taking somewhat the same tactic now that they're back in charge. You don't hear quite as many personal attacks on most appointments, they just refuse to confirm them.
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.