Posted on 06/22/2011 1:23:14 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
I’m surprised you would even try to say that since research says that smoking pot is benefical for those prone to alzheimers?
http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/1831/Marijuana-may-ward-off-Alzheimers-disease.aspx
Of course that does not mean it can prevent it and at 66 he’s at prime age for those type of problems.
And another:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pot-joins-the-fight-against-alzheim-2008-11-19
Commerce in virtually everything runs across national and state lines. You've just bought the argument the beltway bureaucrats want you to - that Washington can regulate anything that can conceivably be bought, sold, or traded in interstate commerce. Don't start bitching that they tell you what kind of light bulbs you have to buy.
It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.
In order to accept the premise of the substantial effects doctrine you first must rationalize that no such commerce is possible, which results in a paradoxical conclusion that Marshall didn't know what the hell he was talking about and makes the entire decision questionable.
Just to put a different slant on this and possibly amuse you. In the last 100 years our large corporations have expanded into every state and into other nations. They have a global reach. Much of this is due to modern communications which get tighter and faster every year. Much is due to ease of modern transport to move what they produce.
Think of the Federal Government as a very large and competing corporation. Why would it not want the same rights to get involved in every US state the way Toyota or Proctor&Gamble does. Today we have a shrinking economic pie so the dollars and resources the FedGov Corporation can acquire means less dollars and resources for the private sector corporations
Under that basic premise of a constitutional republic with a national government of limited, enumerated powers it should be irrelevant what they want.
Of course the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington want more power and authority. That is their livlihood. What's important is to realize that they want it, and will use any available means to get it. Consvervative political activism means actively opposing their attempts to assume power and authority that were not legitimately granted to them by States, either in the Constitution proper, or by amendment.
This creates an imbalance with the major corporations. They have national and global reach these days yet you want to keep the Feds in the same puny state that corporations were in 200+ years ago. This is very unnatural and will not happen because the Feds want to be competitive with major global corporations
Just giving you grist for your mill
Read “The Great Reckoning” for more in this vein
You have also been ducking my question about the conflict between your support for drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, and your claim that you support the original Commerce Clause. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?
I am in between both same as I believe Darwin and the sociobiologists (Dawkins) have it half right but God also enters into evolution. Don't act as though you are oblivious to the power of transnational bankers and transnational corporations. What Commerce Clause do you have in mind for them? To restrain them? You have a tunnel vision that only thinks in terms of restraining the Feral Government. Who do you think controls the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve? The most powerful bankers and corporations in the world do
How about the original Commerce Clause. You know, the part that delegates to Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce. If that is inadequate, then amend the Constitution.
In any event, your claim to support the original Commerce Clause is simply not true, since you support federal laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause. Can you not admit to this simple truth?
lol So it will make your day if I admit something? You are so tunnel visioned that you demand Commerce Clause shackles for the Federal Government but no Commerce Clause shackles for our giant banks and corporation that have Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve dancing to their tune. How many corporations even existed in the US when our Constitution was written? Difference between you and me is you are obsessed with limiting Federal overreach while I want to limit Federal overreach and bankster/corporate overreach. I don’t like the Feds any more than you do. We could easily get along after 50% of Federal employees were fired. But then where do you think they would find employment in this kind of bankster ruined economy? Not that they shouldn’t be fired anyway along with nuking the entire EPA, EEOC, most of the Departments of Justice, State and Treasury
Summary— You aren’t thinking big enough.
Just asking you to be truthful and retract the false claim that you support the original Commerce Clause.
Among the states, they have the authority to do whatever it takes to prevent any state from interfering with interstate commerce. This is not "puny".
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.