Ninth Circuit to DEA: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old's Head Is Not OK

Reason ^ | 6/18/12 | Mike Riggs

[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.”

[Ken H]

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?

[DoughtyOne]

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

[DoughtyOne]

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?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[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.)

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"?

[dalereed]

“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!

[Ken H]

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.

[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.)

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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

[GOPsterinMA]

I disagree.

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

[Impy]

I agree.

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

[Impy]

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

[Altariel]

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.

[Altariel]

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”.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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).

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[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.

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.