Posted on 04/21/2009 8:33:00 PM PDT by el marco
Have you paid the University of Colorado $19,000 a year for in-state or illegal alien, or $38,000 a year for out of state tuition, to give your kids the opportunity to improve themselves for a successful future? This photo essay explores some of the extracurricular activities on campus.
Your opinion does not equal mine. Thanks for playing.
Again, you don’t seem to be able to read and type at the same time - water is toxic when taken in too high of quantity. Do you have statistics on the number of people who die from water toxicity each year?? I’m betting it’s pretty low. How much crack or meth (for an example) is toxic to the human body? I’m betting it’s one hit of either (yes, long term exposure has huge detriments over a one time use - but how many people who use drugs do it only one time?).
With respect to the use of the word “duty”, that was me rendering my opinion. After all, that is what has been taking place throughout this dialoge.
Now don’t get yourself into too big a snit, podner. You know that’s bad for your health.
I like people who like hostory. It’s my degree so let’s have fun.
The BOR was forced but the debate was hot. I nver said they didn’t want it but that a lot of founders sadi no to the idea.
I understand you don’t want legalization: that is fine. What is not cool is that equate your dislike to a government mandate to impose it. I have never said drugs do not hurt people but you have no right to make that call, nor does the government.
Again you accuse me of drug use (ad hominum - refer to my previous post on definition). In a similar thread recently I gave my full name, address, and the # to the police department to have them send dogs to my house. How more transparent can I become.
What is so hard about debating the facts? The federal government has no right in this area. This is purely a states rights issue. People who want to continue the WOD want to accuse everyone that they are drug users. BS.
And please, don’t lecture me on your pseronal experience on drug impacts: my brother is a crack addict.
Wickard v. Filburn must be read against the background of the Great Depression and the beginning of the Second World War. In his internet article on the Great Depression, Robert J. Samuelson writes: It is hard for those who did not live through it to grasp the full force of the worldwide depression. Between 1930 and 1939 U.S. unemployment averaged 18.2 percent. The economy's output of goods and services (gross national product) declined 30 percent between 1929 and 1933 and recovered to the 1929 level only in 1939. Prices of almost everything (farm products, raw materials, industrial goods, stocks) fell dramatically. Farm prices, for instance, dropped 51 percent from 1929 to 1933. World trade shriveled: between 1929 and 1933 it shrank 65 percent in dollar value and 25 percent in unit volume. Most nations suffered. In 1932 Britain's unemployment was 17.6 percent. Germany's depression hastened the rise of Hitler and, thereby, contributed to World War II. [1] [edit] New Deal Background In an effort to combat the problems of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed, and with the help of the Democratic-controlled Congress passed, many New Deal programs. Within 100 days of taking office in 1933, he and his advisors proposed a series of measures designed to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems. However, by 1934, the Supreme Court began ruling against many of the New Deal programs as unconstitutional. In his second term, Roosevelt, flush from his 1936 landside presidential victory, was outraged and was convinced he had a mandate from the people to continue and expand his New Deal programs. This conflict between the Court and the Executive branches of government led to FDR's court-packing bill in 1937. However, this bill was rejected as an obvious partisan tactic that lacked any constitutional or legal precedent, although there is technically no prohibition on changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Congress had passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, and portions of its provisions were ruled unconstitutional by the Court in 1933, leading to passage of curative amendments by Congress in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act in 1936. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat. The Supreme Court's decision states that the parties had stipulated as to the economic conditions leading to passage of the legislation: The parties have stipulated a summary of the economics of the wheat industry......The wheat industry has been a problem industry for some years. Largely as a result of increased foreign production and import restrictions, annual exports of wheat and flour from the United States during the ten-year period ending in 1940 averaged less than 10 percent of total production, while, during the 1920s, they averaged more than 25 percent. The decline in the export trade has left a large surplus in production which, in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains in recent years, caused congestion in a number of markets; tied up railroad cars, and caused elevators in some instances to turn away grains, and railroads to institute embargoes to prevent further congestion. Many countries, both importing and exporting, have sought to modify the impact of the world market conditions on their own economy. Importing countries have taken measures to stimulate production and self-sufficiency. The four large exporting countries of Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the United States have all undertaken various programs for the relief of growers. Such measures have been designed, in part at least, to protect the domestic price received by producers. Such plans have generally evolved towards control by the central government. In the absence of regulation, the price of wheat in the United States would be much affected by world conditions. During 1941, producers who cooperated with the Agricultural Adjustment program received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel, as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel. The goal of the legislation was to limit the total production of wheat, so that the supply and demand of wheat would be stabilized, thereby ending the cycle of broad price swings that were deemed to be destructive of the farm economy. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. [edit] Amount of wheat at issue In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (45,000 m2) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (93,000 m2) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (48,000 m2) of excess area.[1] [edit] Procedural history The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called District Court's holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a "manifest error." The court then went on to uphold the AAA under the Interstate Commerce Clause. [edit] The Court's decision The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce. Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial. Some of the parties argument had focused on prior decisions, especially dormant Commerce Clause decisions, in which the Court had tried to focus on whether a commercial activity was local or not local. Justice Jackson's decision rejects that approach as too formalitic: The Government's concern lest the Act be held to be a regulation of production or consumption rather than of marketing is attributable to a few dicta and decisions of this Court which might be understood to lay it down that activities such as 'production,' 'manufacturing,' and 'mining' are strictly 'local' and, except in special circumstances which are not present here, cannot be regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce are, as matter of law, only 'indirect.' Even today, when this power has been held to have great latitude, there is no decision of this Court that such activities may be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. We believe that a review of the course of decision under the Commerce Clause will make plain, however, that questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce": Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.' Here, the regulation of local production of wheat was rationally related to Congress's goal: to stabilize prices by limiting the total supply of wheat produced and consumed. It was clear, the Court held, "that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ..... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices. It has been argued that Wickard marked the end to any limits on Congress's Commerce Clause powers. The Court's own decision, however, emphasizes the role of democratic electoral processes in confining the abuse of the Congressional power, stating that, "At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes." One commentator has written: “In the wake of Jones & Laughlin and Wickard [v. Filburn], it has become clear that… Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity.”[2] Justice Rehnquist's opinion in United States v. Lopez explains: Jones & Laughlin Steel, Darby, and Wickard ushered in an era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that greatly expanded the previously defined authority of Congress under that Clause. In part, this was a recognition of the great changes that had occurred in the way business was carried on in this country. Enterprises that had once been local or at most regional in nature had become national in scope. But the doctrinal change also reflected a view that earlier Commerce Clause cases artificially had constrained the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. [edit] Subsequent jurisprudence In the landmark 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court described Wickard v. Filburn as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce." The Supreme Court majority that decided the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. In Raich, the court held that, as with the home grown wheat at issue in Filburn, home grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce. As the Court explained in Gonzalez: Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
SD has been libelous about you. Its argument does not even rise to ad hominem. Ad hominem only applies when a fact has been established about the person making the argument suggesting a lack of free choice of the position to take.
Good point. I need to go back to my forensics and establish my base.
Maybe your son has been taught at Ft. Benning to write in paragraphs. If so, he could possibly teach you something.
Yes you did say that drug use doesn't hurt people (recall my comments about robbery, burglary, rape, and murder in comparison to your claims that the WOD is a failure). I don't have a right to make a call that people who use drugs cause injury to either themselves or others???? WTF??? Then, we need to eliminate all vehicle code regulations and allow people to drive any damned way they want to./sarc. The Gov. doesn't have the right to make the call on whether drug use injures people???? I do not fathom where you get off making such comments. Then, the Gov. doesn't not have the right to make the call that terrorists injure people either. That has to be the most moronic statement I've read on FR since I became a member. Sorry, but you've cut off your legs. I have a brother who has nearly died so many times from illegal drug use that I really don't need to hear you complaining about my lecturing you about the dangers of drug use, despite your own experiences. At the age of 52 he had to have triple by-pass surgery - how many people do you know of that age who have experienced that??? I once had to sign him out of a mental health facility after being placed under a 5150/5160 hold (tried to commit suicide). But, in addition to this family experience, my 12 years worth of experiences working with children from pre-school to 12th grade who have been exposed to drugs by their parents have proven to me that the claim that drugs are not harmful to other people is just BS. The fact that one person's behavior directly impacts the health and welfare of other people gives the government (which means "we the people") the right to regulate that behavior. Sorry, you have lost your argument - your rights stop where they impact someone else's rights.
That’s the best you can do here??? When I cut and pasted the information it’s appearance was in paragraphs. Forgive me if html changed the format. The information posted was the point anyway, not the format.
Kids, don't smoke pot because it will impair your judgment and you'll hang out with really hideous looking girls like these two on the left here.
Any questions?
I swear to God, no matter how many times I write ad hominem, I am going to misspell it. Done it too many times to count.
Regardless, I read your page and I appreciate the defense here. Always good to see a person who treats the law with respect and not just on personal whim and desire.
I agree that Roe v Wade is horrific. I just wish the States had a chance to fight it out w/o the Supremes getting involved.
If you get to Colorado Springs, cigars are on me.
Paragraphs are your friends here.
A pot smoker in their domicile has no impact on anyone else. Simple. Not complex logic.
Terrorists, drunk drivers, etc. where do you find an issue with laws banning people hurting others? I never argued against that. How does someone getting high in their apartment hurt others? Cheeto dust wafting?
Addicts are addicts. I can’t respond to your brother like I can’t respond to mine. People who view their lives as meaningless won’t change.
Don’t save the world: establish rules and people either abide by them or not. However, the rules must be Constitutional.
“BS - the wod was never actually fought - at least not properly.”
Chairman Mao style?
That's actually a hoax printed in Green Egg magazine a long tie ago. Green Egg touts itself as a pagan magazine by the way. This “Dr. Burke” who allegedly wrote that piece does not exist, nor does the “American Historical Reference Society” he was allegedly president of back when this piece came out. The Smithsonian Institute has never heard of him even though he was supposedly a consultant for them. This footnote you have cited is the only place you will ever see anyone quoting Washington or Madison or Jefferson talking about smoking pot. I don't know if anyone in this country was smoking any of the hemp they grew back then, or if it was even worth smoking. If it was popular then we'd have a lot more than this bogus footnote to indicate that. You can find all sorts of writings about hemp production and hemp uses from back then, but nothing on people using it here for medicinal or recreational purposes at that time. You can find all sorts of recipes for beer and spirits from Washington and others in that period, and plenty of writing about all the drinking going on, but nothing about smoking pot. Odds are it just wasn't done here back then. That started changing some toward the mid 1800s, but what was being consumed was generally imported hash and marijuana, foreign or domestic, never became really popular in this country till the 1960s.
The decision you support has trashed the Tenth Amendment.
Please show me where I stated that I was a supporter of Wicard - I only stated that the Wickard decision paved the way to give the FedGov the ability to regulate illegal drugs - perhaps other court decisions/legislation from congress also provided the FedGov that ability. Nowhere did I state I supported that decision - FYI, I do not subscribe to your claim that the 10th has been trashed because of Wickard - rather, I propose that the 10th was trashed by the 50 states not standing up to the FedGov in the first place.
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.