Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ninth Circuit to DEA: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old's Head Is Not OK
Reason ^ | 6/18/12 | Mike Riggs

Posted on 06/18/2012 4:14:48 PM PDT by BCrago66

At 7 a.m. on January 20, 2007, DEA agents battered down the door to Thomas and Rosalie Avina’s mobile home in Seeley, California, in search of suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez. Thomas Avina met the agents in his living room and told them they were making a mistake. Shouting “Don’t you *ucking move,” the agents forced Thomas Avina to the floor at gunpoint, and handcuffed him and his wife, who had been lying on a couch in the living room. As the officers made their way to the back of the house, where the Avina’s 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters were sleeping, Rosalie Avina screamed, “Don’t hurt my babies. Don’t hurt my babies.”

(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 9th; banglist; dea; donutwatch; drugs; drugwar; leo; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd; wronghouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: DoughtyOne
Would you tell me what section of the Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to devise any federal statutes? And yet there are federal statutes.]

I gave you several in post #66 in response to your questions. Your question was also answered in post #89

Now please have the common courtesy to return the favor by answering the question put to you. To refresh your memory...

Would you tell us which section of the Constitution you believe delegates to Congress the authority to regulate intrastate drug policies?

101 posted on 06/19/2012 1:50:34 PM PDT by Ken H (v)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

You did at least try to link to the question you haven’t answered. And I do appreciate that. POST 79

What’s the last question I asked you on that post? Did you answer it? Not to my knowledge.

There was a lead in statement, and then I posed a question.

So far, you don’t seem to know of any federal statutes or laws that go across state lines unrelated to drugs.

Do you or don’t you?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2896720/posts?page=79#79


102 posted on 06/19/2012 1:58:09 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Republicanism: Y1 Rant Y2 Rant Y3 Rant Y4, Oh nevermind, vote for him anyway. Rinse & Repeat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Those are the only statutes you know of that cross state lines? Really?

If you don’t know about the thousands of other statutes on the books, why am I wasting my time with you?


103 posted on 06/19/2012 2:01:24 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Republicanism: Y1 Rant Y2 Rant Y3 Rant Y4, Oh nevermind, vote for him anyway. Rinse & Repeat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; Ken H
So far, you don’t seem to know of any federal statutes or laws that go across state lines unrelated to drugs.

Do you or don’t you?

There is little Constitutional problem with federal statutes or laws that go ACROSS state lines, as the Commerce Clause grants Congress authority over INTERstate commerce. The Constitutional problem with federal statutes or laws relating to activity INSIDE state lines, over which the Constitution gives Congress no broad authority.

Hence the question you've now been asked FIVE times:

Would you tell us which section of the Constitution you believe delegates to Congress the authority to regulate INTRAstate drug policies? (emphasis added)

104 posted on 06/19/2012 2:05:34 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It’s not within the enumerated powers of Congress to ban or restrict simple possession of illicit drugs within the borders of a state. Period. (Gonzales v. Raich and its predecessor, Wickard v. Filburn, were wrongly decided.)

I’m just curious if you can think of any other laws that are on the books today that Congress can’t come up with because they aren’t enumerated within the U. S. Constitution.

As you well know, there are literally thousands of them.

Agreed.

The only reason nobody cares,

Assumes facts not in evidence. Where do you get the idea that nobody cares?

is that they can’t smoke them. So acting as if these laws don’t exist,

Who's acting like that? You wouldn't be propping up a straw man, would you?

and that drug policy is something totally different is... well... childish.

105 posted on 06/19/2012 2:07:16 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Nice try, but there are non-commerce related statutes and you still try to cover your ass by only mentioning the laws that you think are covered by the commerce clause.

I have wasted my time giving you chance after chance to admit that the federal government has a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws, that cross state lines.

You don’t want to address that, because these laws are widely accepted without objection.

The drug laws are generally accepted in the same manner.

Therefore, belching at length about them as if they are a violation when the others aren’t, is just silly.

You don’t like it. I get it. This is an impasse we’re going to continue to have. We both knew it at the beginning of this harangue.


106 posted on 06/19/2012 2:17:56 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Republicanism: Y1 Rant Y2 Rant Y3 Rant Y4, Oh nevermind, vote for him anyway. Rinse & Repeat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have wasted my time giving you chance after chance to admit that the federal government has a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws

I've already agreed that this is true. (Free clue: I'm not Ken H nor BCrago66.)

these laws are widely accepted without objection.

I don't accept them without objection. I'm aware of no evidence that many FReepers accept them without objection. Do you think it's a conservative argument to say that unconstitutional laws are OK if they're "widely accepted without objection"?

107 posted on 06/19/2012 2:26:52 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“Apparently it was OK with the 14 year old...”

Shouldn’t be anything wrong with the 11 year okld!

I was 5-10 and 150 at age 11 and could kick the shit out of any kid in grammer school.

How would a cop know the difference between me and an adult!

If need be pull the trigger!


108 posted on 06/19/2012 2:30:38 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have wasted my time giving you chance after chance to admit that the federal government has a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws, that cross state lines.

Yes indeed, there are many federal laws that cross state lines that are similar to federal drug laws. A few of the many examples would be fedgov control of education, the environment, health care, and national drug prohibition. They are all based on the same expansive view of the Commerce Clause.

You don’t want to address that, because these laws are widely accepted without objection.

Accepted by you apparently, but not by people who respect the Constitution.

109 posted on 06/19/2012 2:40:42 PM PDT by Ken H (v)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
I have wasted my time giving you chance after chance to admit that the federal government has a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws.

I've already agreed that this is true. (Free clue: I'm not Ken H nor BCrago66.)

You'll have to forgive me, but I didn't really catch that you were admitting that there are a myriad of laws on our books that are similar to the government's drug laws.  It seemed to me that you were quite careful not to go there.  It seemed as if you were trying to stick to Commerce Clause and other areas of the Constitution.  If I did in fact miss it, then it wasn't intentional.

I do believe it is fair to challenge these laws on the basis you're trying to.  I'm just not an easy roll-over for folks who want to challenge our drug laws.


I do realize there are different ways to address this issue, and different peole using different methods here.  Not knowing some people, it's rather easy for me to lump everyone into one basked until I can determine the exact mindset, tactics, and goals sought.


These laws are widely accepted without objection.

I don't accept them without objection. I'm aware of no evidence that many FReepers accept them without objection. Do you think it's a conservative argument to say that unconstitutional laws are OK if they're "widely accepted without objection"?


Okay, you don't.

No, but I don't see FReepers making endless lists of laws they think should be struck down either.  I do see some.  On a case by case basis, I'm sure there are many they would like to see struck down.

If hard pressed though, I think they would be surpirsed at some of the things they might like to see remain in place too.  And when you get that one thing you want to remain in place, you've just validated the practice of any of these laws existing at all.  You're going to disagree with that on Constitutional grounds.  In the real world, it essentially does.  Until they are challenged on the Constitutionality point, they are graced in as Constitutional.

What's the solution to this?  Is it to strike down all federal statutes of this nature?  Some people might agree to it.  If you made a list of 100 to 500 things they might want to remain in place, you'd find a lot of people scratching their heads too.

No, I don't think it's a Conservative argument to back unconstitutional laws.  As an attorney though, you've argued enough cases to know that your interpretation isn't the only interpretation.

Even Conservatives disagree about certain aspects of the U. S. Constitution.  I don't believe the 14th Amendment guarantees U. S. Citizenship to the children born to illegal immigrants on U. S. Soil.  Others do.  At the present time it's a fate accompli.

So when it comes to our laws concerning drugs, I do think it's open to interpretation whether they are Constitutional or not.  You may very well be right, but in their inception, they were graced in.

Until someone makes a sound enough case to shoot that premise down that they are Constitutional, they will remain on the books.  Of course those laws could also be repealed if our elected officials adopted the mindset of those who think the War on Drugs causes far more problems than it solves.

Thank you for your comments.

110 posted on 06/19/2012 3:10:52 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Republicanism: Y1 Rant Y2 Rant Y3 Rant Y4, Oh nevermind, vote for him anyway. Rinse & Repeat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

You might be interested in the post I made above this one in the last few minutes.


111 posted on 06/19/2012 3:14:07 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Republicanism: Y1 Rant Y2 Rant Y3 Rant Y4, Oh nevermind, vote for him anyway. Rinse & Repeat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I disagree.

Drugs (both illegal and legal) have played a large part in the downfall of this country.


112 posted on 06/19/2012 5:57:42 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Glove don't fit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Bratch; fieldmarshaldj

I agree.

BTW the actor that played Ben Stone has some interesting political views.


113 posted on 06/20/2012 3:04:26 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; Altariel

Damn stinking pigs, did they think the girls had uzis under their pillow?


114 posted on 06/20/2012 3:05:30 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Yes, there is something wrong when a government thug holds a gun to the heads of a sleeping 14 year old and 11 year old, particularly when the government thug is IN A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN’S HOUSE.


115 posted on 06/20/2012 8:24:54 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Impy

If the mother had defended her daughters when the thugs came in, woke up the girls, screamed profanities at them, and bound them, I would have found her not guilty, on the grounds that they were acting like street thugs, and not “professional law enforcement officers”.


116 posted on 06/20/2012 9:14:20 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA
Drugs (both illegal and legal) have played a large part in the downfall of this country.

The primary effect of making some drugs illegal has been to enrich violent criminals. We'll be better off if we legalize and regulate lightly (that is, to about the same extent as the legal drug alcohol).

117 posted on 06/20/2012 2:29:41 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Even Conservatives disagree about certain aspects of the U. S. Constitution. [...] So when it comes to our laws concerning drugs, I do think it's open to interpretation whether they are Constitutional or not.

I have yet to see a conservative interpretation that supports federal laws on intrastate drug matters. (It's in no way conservative to support the FDR court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effects" test - which gave us the vast majority of today's federal welfare state.)

Until someone makes a sound enough case to shoot that premise down that they are Constitutional, they will remain on the books.

Of course - my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.

118 posted on 06/20/2012 2:39:44 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Thanks for the additional comments.

When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too, perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

I had to bludgeon you to admit any of them actually existed. Why would I have to do that with a guy who so readily hates all such laws.

Frankly, we both know I shouldn’t.


119 posted on 06/20/2012 5:58:42 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have yet to see a conservative interpretation that supports federal laws on intrastate drug matters. (It's in no way conservative to support the FDR court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effects" test - which gave us the vast majority of today's federal welfare state.)

[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.

When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,

I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.

perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).

I had to bludgeon you to admit any of them actually existed.

No, that was your lack of clear communication.

120 posted on 06/21/2012 10:52:11 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
I have yet to see a conservative interpretation that supports federal laws on intrastate drug matters. (It's in no way conservative to support the FDR court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effects" test - which gave us the vast majority of today's federal welfare state.)

[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.


When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,

I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.

You love to throw around the 'clearly unconsititonal' term.  In certain circumstances, I am inclined to agree with your assessment.  Let's be truthful about it though.  None of these laws have been taken to the SCOTUS and proven to be what you say they are.  So in actuality, you have FReepers coming here to voice support for the laws on our nation's books.  Until they are taken before the SCOTUS and proven to be unconstitutional, it is inaccurate for you label folks as backing unconstitutional laws.  It is your thought that they are, but you haven't made your case before the SCOTUS.  Thus speacking in absolutes is a misrepresentation.

You may suspect that I have committed murder.  Many folks may agree.  In the eyes of the law, I am still not a murderer until I am charged, evidence is weighed, and a jury of my peers has found me gulity.  Your hypotheticals may be accurate.  I may agree with you on some of them.  That doesn't make these things unconstitutional until they are addressed and judged to be.

perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).

If you don't care about your credibility with me, why are you still trying to beat this dead horse?  Why would you even respond to my comments about your credibility if you didn't care about my take on your credibility?

I said specifically (and you even copied and pasted it here), When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,
perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

Okay, lets address your comments at the beginning of this post.  Look at what you posted above.  Please point out to me even one SPECIFIC law that you disagree with.  I don't think you can do it.  You tossed out the complete Welfare State as an example of specific law.  Thats about as precise as naming the Titanic when you're asked to provide a specific case of improper care of violyns.

If you're not willing to be specific, how can you sit there typing away saying you have already shown me what other laws you disagree with?  And I had to pester you post after post before you would even admit that there was a category of laws out there of a similar status as our 'Drug' laws.

I had to bludgeon you to admit any of them actually existed.

No, that was your lack of clear communication.

No it wasn't.  I tried to end this on a cordial note with you, but we both know that isn't true. 

Please link me to where you first admitted that other laws with the same status as our 'Drug' laws existed

Then I would appreciate it if you would link me to where you first mentioned another law by specific name that you disagreed with.


121 posted on 06/21/2012 1:07:30 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have yet to see a conservative interpretation that supports federal laws on intrastate drug matters. (It's in no way conservative to support the FDR court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effects" test - which gave us the vast majority of today's federal welfare state.)

[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.

When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,

I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.

You love to throw around the 'clearly unconsititonal' term. In certain circumstances, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Let's be truthful about it though. None of these laws have been taken to the SCOTUS and proven to be what you say they are.

No real conservative would imply that the SCOTUS, which has given us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas, is a valid test for constitutionality.

I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).

If you don't care about your credibility with me, why are you still trying to beat this dead horse? Why would you even respond to my comments about your credibility if you didn't care about my take on your credibility?

To note that your raising that non-issue was a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points.

Okay, lets address your comments at the beginning of this post.

Nothing you've written addresses my comments at the beginning of this post.

Look at what you posted above. Please point out to me even one SPECIFIC law that you disagree with. I don't think you can do it. You tossed out the complete Welfare State as an example of specific law. Thats about as precise as naming the Titanic when you're asked to provide a specific case of improper care of violyns.

If you're not willing to be specific, how can you sit there typing away saying you have already shown me what other laws you disagree with?

This is the first time you've shown any interest in specificity - you have made a number of vague references such as "a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws", that's what you asked if I agreed with, and that's what I did voice agreement with. This "be specific" red herring is another of your transparent attempts to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).

Please link me to where you first admitted that other laws with the same status as our 'Drug' laws existed

Post #105.

122 posted on 06/21/2012 1:46:04 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashiering

That’s what I’d do to them. IF I was feeling merciful.


123 posted on 06/24/2012 4:34:27 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
As one teacher put it baldly:
“If you are found screwing the judges daughter he can issue an order from the bench ordering you to be castrated.”
If a doctor is found who will do such then you are a eunuch and the legal liability of the judge to criminal prosecution is Zero.

This is factually incorrect. There's something called the 5th Amendment which states that one shall not be held to account for infamous crimes without a indictment or presentment, further it says that they will not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Then there's something called the 6th Amendment which says that in all criminal prosecution the accused has the right to a jury trial.
Then there's the 8th Amendment which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments."

Oh, wait, I forgot, things like Constitutions don't constrain governments but are instead interments to bludgeon people with... carry on.

124 posted on 06/30/2012 7:49:37 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
Actually, it is. The difference is that the Republicans, in the main, don’t think they are instituting a totalitarian regime. As for Democrats, Totalitarianism is their project.

Just because they "don't think they are" doesn't mean that they aren't.
Ex: Patriot Act. (Though some saw it for what it was.)

125 posted on 06/30/2012 8:06:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
>Do states set their own border policies?
No. Congress is delegated that authority under the power to regulate foreign commerce and to repel invasions.

Er, the states can also repel invasions. Most of their Constitutions have such wording.

126 posted on 06/30/2012 8:11:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Actually, it is factually correct.

While I agree with your cites, that does not mean that the jurists do not have unqualified immunity.
They do - and that is, unfortunately, a big reason that they act as they do.

What I think should be done would probably get me banned here.


127 posted on 06/30/2012 8:19:57 PM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
You are correct.
128 posted on 06/30/2012 8:25:29 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; DoughtyOne; Ken H
And when will you FINALLY answer the question that's been repeatedly asked of you: Would you tell us which section of the Constitution you believe delegates to Congress the authority to regulate intrastate drug policies?

Ok, I'll help them out.
The same section that allows the Supreme Court to make up new laws, as they did in Roe v. Wade, and to and the same section from whence they can justify the absence of a market that would be commerce if it existed (Raich) to impact, in some manner the supply or demand int the state which in turn impacts the national [interstate] market and therefore is a matter of interstate commerce (Wickarc).

The little known Article π, Section √e (otherwise known as the Black-Robed God-King Clause)
The supreme court shall have jurisdiction over all laws and the Constitution and may alter or abolish this document at will.
NOW BOW BEFORE US PEASANTS! BOW AND STAND IN AWE AT OUR BRILLIANCE!

129 posted on 06/30/2012 8:28:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
Actually, it is factually correct.

No it is not. Just because they say it is and have brainwashed people into believing it does not make it any more valid than it would a 10 year-old scrawling Keep Out on the garden-shed and claiming that it legally protected him.

That is to say, either the Constitutions are the supreme laws of the land, and therefore these immunities are inferior and subject to them, or they are not, in which case those sitting as judges cannot be legitimate judges because that Constitution that was rejected is what creates and sustains the position. That is all laws passed persuant to a Constitution that is nonoperative are themselves inoperative and therefore cannot afford any protection to anyone.

What I think should be done would probably get me banned here.

LOL -- Same here.

130 posted on 06/30/2012 8:38:57 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
It is now case law that the power of Congress to tax and regulate encompasses the following:

"The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control."

J. Roberts

________________________________________________________________

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

J. Scalia, concurring in Raich

131 posted on 06/30/2012 8:43:06 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
It is now case law that the power of Congress to tax and regulate encompasses the following

And I reject the notion that case law is superior to Constitutional law. In fact case law is doomed to failure more oft than Constitutional law because it depends on rulings which cannot themselves be guaranteed correct.

The two are now mutually exclusive as the case law now has the exact opposite of what the Constitution says as "constitutional."
The commerce clause is embedded in "with Indian tribes" and "with foreign nations", to hold that intrastate commerce is sufficient impactful of interstate commerce to allow its regulation is to say that a foreign country's internal commerce may likewise be regulated by Congress. This is absurd on its face, and would rightly be considered an act of war by that foreign state.

132 posted on 06/30/2012 9:22:55 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I agree.
133 posted on 06/30/2012 9:56:38 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson