Posted on 03/20/2012 7:58:08 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
That point has already been settled by the court in Gonzales vs. Raich.
That means it may not violate another portion of the Constitution, which it does, the Ninth Amendment.
Gonzales (and a lot of precedent prior to that!) does exactly that! It establishes that almost ANY activity can be deemed to fall under the commerce clause AND that these types of activities are "never more than one step away from interstate commerce".
The court has repeatedly found that the constitution does not mean what it black letter says, but rather that it means what the COURT says it says! We likely face a 4-4 split with Scalia, who penned the "never one step away" clause being the decider. THAT does not make me comfortable!
That is exactly what that decision allows!
In 2005, I wrote:
"Not only is it impossible to distinguish 'controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate' from 'controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate' but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms," he said. "As the court explains, tomatoes which are grown at home and possessed for personal use are never more than an instant from the interstate market and this is so whether or not the possession is for nutritional use or lawful use under the laws of a particular state." Post 38
This is more or less a simple substitution. It is absurd - but - it is also now precedent.
Do you agree or disagree with the Raich decision?
—Do you agree or disagree with the Raich decision?—
Well, it’s sticky for me. It offends me that the government can regulate something that may grow wild in some areas. However, the way the laws are written I do believe the decision was within the constitution.
But I believe there is a chasm between the government preventing someone from doing something and forcing them to do something. Take the Jim Crow laws. In that case, the government said you could not discriminate based on race. The “kept them from doing something”. But with affirmative action, it was not only the opposite (forcing them to do something) but was actually government forced racial discrimination (forcing businesses to hire or otherwise deal with certain people over others based solely on race). The former was “government permitted” discrimination while the latter was “government forced” discrimination.
It is disgusting.
I’m only surprised the bastards did not try to make the tax retroactive......
Check my prior links and learn.
What does the way the laws are written have to do whether Raich is within the Constitution or not?
You also just endorsed the New Deal Commerce Clause, which makes possible federal control of education, welfare, the environment, as well as health care.
Only Fox News covered this reality. Only the Tea Party raised h e double toothpicks about it.
Whatever...
I figured that was where you were going. Your question was so loaded I could smell the gunpowder. :-)
"However, the way the laws are written I do believe the decision was within the constitution."
That's an expression of contempt for the Constitution.
—That’s an expression of contempt for the Constitution.—
What is? All I said is “However, the way the laws are written I do believe the decision was within the constitution.”
You see, some laws are constitutional, and some aren’t. That was my point. It is constitutional to make some things illegal. Crack cocaine, for example. When I say a decision is within the constitution, what I mean is that I agree with it and believe it from a constitutional perspective.
So where does the Constitution delegate to Congress the authority to dictate intrastate drug policy? Answer - Via the expansive New Deal view of the Commerce Clause. It is the same precedent that allows the federal govt to control health care, education, the environment etc. It has all but nullified the Tenth Amendment.
That's what you're signing on to when you support the Raich decision. Agreed?
—That’s what you’re signing on to when you support the Raich decision. Agreed?—
No. I don’t agree. The federal government CAN control some intrastate activity. Slavery, for example.
That power is delegated by the 13th and 14th amendments, not the New Deal Commerce Clause. Raich depends on the New Deal view of the Commerce Clause, as does fedgov control of health care, et al.
So yes, you are signing on to it when you support Raich.
” Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
I don’t see how anyone can spin that into regulating non-activity, which would have to be done to apply to Obumblecare.
Out of curiosity, did you support the Raich decision?
To make that fit the case now, the ruling would have had to order the lady to purchase other drugs rather than using pot.
I'm sure the ruling left the option of using nothing open to her.
I guess we will find out in a few months.
Did you support the Raich decision?
Learn what? That you can't understand that the court doesn't care what that person thinks? Willard was an atrocity - Raich, which could have been used to remove that bad precedent instead codified it further.
And you honestly think that the court will now suddenly find new meaning in necessary and proper?
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.