Posted on 05/17/2011 1:19:06 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement
SALT LAKE CITY — A Salt Lake City woman has been charged with a third degree felony for allegedly asking an undercover police officer to give her drugs in exchange for an Olive Garden salad in a to-go box.
The 33-year-old woman approached the undercover officer who was working on the corner of 200 South and 300 West in Salt Lake, according to charging documents. The woman was carrying a white food container and asked the undercover officer for $10 worth of cocaine, according to the charges. She "stated that she wanted some cocaine, but she only had $2 and a salad," the charges state.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
That's your argument, not mine. I have said just the opposite. I've made the point numerous times that you need not be an expert, nor have any detailed knowledge of the case to know the gist of it.
I've already told you the gist at least a couple of times: Wickard was the FDR era case that expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause to allow fedgov control of health care, the environment, education etc.
Aparently, none of that matters to you. You want your Drug War, the Constitution be damned. It is laughable when you to claim you want it fought within the limits of the Constitution.
your standard for "contempt" is really really low. Sorry, can't cite the case law on that one either.
I'm arguing that you need not know the case in any great detail, nor be an expert to know the basics about Wickard.
And yes, the fact that you advocate a fedgov policy, but refuse to inform yourself at all about its constitutional basis is contempt for the Constitution. Deal with it.
One of the primary differnences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives make an honest effort to understand the issues involved, and consider the potential unintended consequences of any legislation or policy before they agree to support it.
Liberals don't do this. They want what they want, and the want it now, by whatever means they can find to get it, and they don't give a damn about what the unintended consequences might be.
Please. At least make an effort to understand what the issues are, so you can understand what the consequences will be.
“One of the primary differnences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives make an honest effort to understand the issues involved, and consider the potential unintended consequences of any legislation or policy before they agree to support it.”
I do. K. Ham likes to pretend I don’t.
I don’t need to read every court case ever on every Constitutional issue to have an opinion on it.
I oppose Roe v. Wade and have since the 1980s. Never read it! I have read some articles and listened to some learned speakers on it. So?
Am I allowed to oppose abortion in America? Or must I read every court case pertaining thereto first?
“Deal with it. “
You deal with it. Everyone is not going to do everything Your Way.
Do you have an opinion on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the resulting expansion of the federal government under the "substantial effects" doctrine?
This is a basic issue of the fundamental Constitutional principle of a having a national government limited to strictly enumerated powers, and the division of power between the States and the national government that defines the republic. Surely that's worthy of serious discussion and careful consideration.
“Do you have an opinion on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the resulting expansion of the federal government under the “substantial effects” doctrine?”
No I do not!
I agree. However, you should at least give some thought to the Constitution before advocating a fedgov policy, agreed?
Do you think fedgov's use of the Commerce Clause to impose national drug prohibition is in keeping with the clause's original meaning?
Is that because you do not know enough about the issue to have formed an opinion?
“I agree. However, you should at least give some thought to the Constitution before advocating a fedgov policy, agreed?”
Yes. I already told you. I’ve read the Constitution, several times. I am generally familiar with it.
“Do you think fedgov’s use of the Commerce Clause to impose national drug prohibition is in keeping with the clause’s original meaning? “
No, I think this power is left to the states. However, this portion is largely ignored in our current political reality. More is the pity.
Since the states CAN’T do much to exercise their constitutional obligations, our options are to have basically no drug abuse laws or let the feds do it.
My preference is to let the feds do it while working for a restitution of the properly delegated powers to the states.
I’d rather that the states’ responsibilities had not been eroded over the decades but there is nothing I can do about that except try to do what little I can to restore things back to the way they should be.
Take this principle to the notion of illegal immigration. I believe states have the right AND responsibility to police their borders. The feds have taken over (and are not doing much of a job). Would I like the borders unpoliced until the states take back over? No, I’d like the feds to police until the states get back on the job where they are supposed to be.
My “No I do not!” was a wrong response; should not have been addressed to you.
My opinion as to the New Deal is that it was a gigantic expansion of federal power, and most if not all of the expansion was unconstitutional.
All of the states have drug laws. If the DEA was declared unconstitutional tomorrow, and all the DEA regulations declared unenforceable, all the drugs that are illegal in your state today would still be illegal tomorrow. Nothing would change.
persevero: No, I think this power is left to the states.
That means you are supporting laws that you believe are in violation of the Constitution. Agreed?
“persevero: No, I think this power is left to the states.”
“That means you are supporting laws that you believe are in violation of the Constitution. Agreed?”
It means that, pragmatically, I believe that since states power has been usurped, it is better for the feds to uphold reasonable drug laws than for us to have no enforced drug laws at all. While we work for a return to the original expression of the constitution.
Do you understand you do not live in a perfect world?
In the 1800s men were kidnapped, cruelly treated and confined and tortured, often killed, whipped and sold, denied all due process and basic human rights, bred, forced into labor, had families and children torn from them, deprived of every basic human right we know of. The southern states should not have allowed it.
But they did.
Eventually the fedgov intervened, after countless lives were lost legal slavery was ended, and the fedgov took upon itself more power than the Constitution might allow.
Should it not have happened? I am afraid it should have. The southern states, while correct about states’ rights, pushed their perogative so nastily that it was pragmatically best for the fedgov to intervene.
I wish it hadn’t needed to happen. But it did. The alternative was worse.
And now, I wish the fedgov didn’t need to enforce drug laws. But having no drug laws enforced at all is worse.
When I have a choice between two evils, I choose the lesser. I won’t apologize for it.
“all the drugs that are illegal in your state today would still be illegal tomorrow. Nothing would change. “
But would they be ENFORCED? That’s what I think the problem is. There would be little to no enforcement.
Similar to border issues, which are being wrassled out in the court system right now.
What evidence do you have to support that conclusion? I'll wager the vast majority of drug arrests in your state are already done by state, county, or municial LEOs, for violations of state, county or municipal drug laws.
I frequently see the argument presented that the federal government must be granted absolute control of all drugs, or there will be chaos and anarchy. I can't find one shred of evidence to support the conclusion that those are the only choices. Where does that idea originate, and why does it persist?
“I frequently see the argument presented that the federal government must be granted absolute control of all drugs, or there will be chaos and anarchy. I can’t find one shred of evidence to support the conclusion that those are the only choices. Where does that idea originate, and why does it persist? “
I agree, it’s not necessarily all one way or all the other.
Those who post against drug laws do seem to characterize life as ideally returning to the 1800s when I guess drug abuse was all legal.
My opinion that no fed enforcement of drug laws means no enforcement at all probably stems from my observations about border laws. Either the feds enforce them or they aren’t enforced. States that try (like AZ) get enjoined in the courts, although the Supremes have not weighed in yet.
If the states indeed took up, or as you say currently routinely and efficiently enforce, drug laws; then I’d be content for the feds to get out, save for perhaps drugs crossing our national borders, where I do think they have scope.
Which means you probably should retract this statement: ...I still want to see drug laws enforced constitutionally.
That's simply not true. A true statement would be that you want to see drug laws enforced constitutionally, except when you don't.
Have I made my case for contempt of the Constitution on your part?
“Have I made my case for contempt of the Constitution on your part? “
Nope.
I don't think there's any issue with them having authority at the national borders. Exercising the Commerce Power with foreign nations is a different proposition than exercising it among the several states.
At least show some honesty and own up to it.
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.