Posted on 09/22/2010 5:46:41 PM PDT by george76
Bovine scat. Nobody believes you.
That’s fine. You find somebody else to make jump through your hoops to enterain your ego, that’s what bureaucrats do. If anybody that wants a cite for something other than twisting and crapping on the writings of the Founders, they know where to find me. You can go pound sand.
Another Obama promise goes up in smoke
The enforcement of fugitive slave laws were also considered a form of interstate commerce. But metaphors aside, if I grow a plant on my own property, that act is not interstate commerce. Now if I took the plants and took them across state lines, then that would be interstate commerce and thus be subject to federal law.
“Pot is not just a plant...It ruins lives...It wastes your brain cells.”
Congratulations. You just used the same argument liberals use for wanting to ban fast-food, fatty foods, soft drinks, and everything else.
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to dictate what anyone ingests? Name it.
Who is ‘that other twit’?
Because, although Scalia and his cronies do not like the Commerce Clause, they like pot even less. They don't think it's good for you. Read the Gonzalez v. Raich case from about five years ago.
And don't smoke pot!!
Are you in favor of heroin use?
Sure. Who are you to say someone cannot use it? The reason they do in many cases is because it is illegal and therefore “cool” to try it. Outlaw Kool-Aid and watch “junkies” shoot it up.
Booze kills tens of thousands each year. Look at the extreme crime rate when this nation banned it.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as recently as 2005.
I haven’t read all of the postings on this thread yet, so I’m sure I’ll get blasted for my comments.
I say “Good on the Judge” for standing for the law. The damned White House does not make laws, so it doesn’t matter if they say they will go easy on people growing pot in liberal states that permit medicinal pot. The Judge must be one of the minority of non-liberals still sitting on the bench who believe in the written law instead of liberal feelings and BS.
Off topic, but the damned Feds have done the same thing regarding sanctuary cities and states who do not enforce laws relative to illegal aliens.
How about abortion? Are you in favor of that too?
The Constitution is the Law of the land, not whatever statute, ordinance, decision or regulation the government decides to spew.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker
-----
Please show me the Constitutional authority that gives the government the ability to tell any of the People what they can possess or ingest.
That is the authority they used - sorry, but that's a fact. You might disagree with that but there it is. If you want to change it, then pass the necessary amendments, work tirelessly to elect representatives who will rescind old laws, pass new protections, and choose better Justices. Elections have consequences and the system isn't perfect. However, the Constitution also has remedies built in, namely Article V, the amendment procedure, and Article I, Section 7, the procedure for the passing of Laws. Use them. Stop complaining and do something - within the bounds of the Constitution which I am sworn to uphold and defend. Aren't you?
Sorry, but you can't 'torture' the Constitution in ANY aspect and use it to create Law.
For instance, the commerce clause-
Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress;namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 / Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 455
§ 1075 The constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers; and none of them can be rightfully exercised beyond the scope of the objects, specified in those powers. It is not disputed, that, when the power is given, all the appropriate means to carry it into effect are included. Neither is it disputed, that the laying of duties is, or may be an appropriate means of regulating commerce. But the question is a very different one, whether, under pretence of an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, congress may in fact impose duties for objects wholly distinct from commerce. The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
Just because SCOTUS was created or makes any judicial decision doesn't create Law, particularly if they exercise a jurisdiction that was never theirs.
For instance, nowhere in the Judiciary Act of 1789 is SCOTUS given the jurisdiction to decide on a case between a citizen and the State in which that citizen resides.
Historical documents are full of such examples of Original Intent on almost every subject imaginable.
So the question becomes - If you have an Oath to uphold the Constitution, why is government allowed to tell you that the Constitution means something you know it really doesn't just because they say they can?
This is an issue that can reveal the false bravado of conservatives. They hate drugs, but profess that they want a Constitutionally limited Federal govt. A FEDGOV big enough to enforce this law, breaks the Constitution into pieces, but it is drugs........which is more evil?
“After all, who are you to sat they can’t come into the US? “
You obviously have a problem with not understanding private property issues.
Illegal aliens are not US citizens and therefore are not entitled to the property of this nation.
Abortion is an issue of life. A fetus is a life. Although attached to a mother, it still has the right to life.
I hope maybe my answers help you to understand private proeprty and ownership rights and not emotional conservative/liberal issue talking points.
Of course i'm against the mosque myself, but how can you be? Private property rights seem to trump all other laws in your book.
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.