Irrelevant. There are dry counties in the states, but controlled by the state constitutions. The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution. 
Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine
I am not making these things up. I don't agree with them. They just are.
And I cite them only to refute your statements, not that they reflect my feelings. You can't just blatently throw around 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment as an argument. Do you expect people just to nod their head and say, "Yeah, 9th and 14th Amendment. Uh-huh. Right, tpaine says so"?
Keep in mind that the 9th Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment, thereby blurring the distinction and separation between the States and the Federal government, which was what the 9th Amendment was supposed to do!.
In 200 years, the 9th Amendment was used only twice in a court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). And even then, the rights of the individual could only be found in "emanations and penumbras" of the Amendment.
Robert Bork said of the 9th: "...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution." But you think that it guarantees the right to smoke dope. Ok.
"...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution."
former U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork (on the 9th Amendment)
Oh, who to believe?
See my post #121. I think the 14th Amendment really screwed up the 9th. (to tpaine: Not that I agree!)
I have NO idea where or WHAT you've been reading. YOU have been FOR legalization..I have ALWAYS been AGAINST it. And now, I tire of your useless & misleading viewpoint. Don't forget to take your lithium. Buh bye.
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.
Irrelevant. There are dry counties in the states, but controlled by the state constitutions. The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution.
Of course. You don't have to interpret a waterblot. It's obviously a waterblot; it can't be anything else. Therefore the 9th can't mean anything else than what it says.
BTW, do you have the whole quote and the context? If you do post it. Such a fragment could have been saying anything.
That's why there had to be an amendment for liquor prohibition and why drug prohibition, like firearm prohibition, has to be accomplished through Article 1, secion 8 clause 3.
You can believe whomever you want. Nothing I can say will make it clear that you, along with most of us, have been had.
Why do you insist on shooting the messenger? Pretend you're reading a newspaper or something.
Why do you insist that I'm shooting a messenger? I'm countering your confused, mistaken opinions, just as I write, countering an editorial in a newspaper.
I am not making these things up. I don't agree with them. They just are.
You agree with the 'concept' that states can ban guns, but you don't agree with them doing so. - Sure. -- You need help with your ethical dichotomies, in my book.
And I cite them only to refute your statements, not that they reflect my feelings. You can't just blatently throw around 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment as an argument.
I'm not 'throwing them around', I'm arguing the point that they mean what they say. - Counter my actual opinions or arguments, not what you "blatently" mischaracterize them to be.
Do you expect people just to nod their head and say, "Yeah, 9th and 14th Amendment. Uh-huh. Right, tpaine says so"?
No, I expect reasoned debate, which seldom appears.
Keep in mind that the 9th Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment, thereby blurring the distinction and separation between the States and the Federal government, which was what the 9th Amendment was supposed to do!
I don't see that the Ninth was altered in any way by the 14th. The 14th merely clarified that the BOR's can not be violated by state laws, as per the original intent of the Supermacy clause. This concept is backed up by the 14ths ratification hearings, available at the congressional library. Read them.
In 200 years, the 9th Amendment was used only twice in a court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). And even then, the rights of the individual could only be found in "emanations and penumbras" of the Amendment. Robert Bork said of the 9th: "...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution." But you think that it guarantees the right to smoke dope. Ok.
There [in bold] is probably the real issue. It seems that many could care less about our constitution if this single issue was enforced as 'law'. Sorry, but prohibiting abortion doesn't work any better than banning alcohol, drugs or guns. -- And, like any fiat prohibition, it is unconstitutional.
-- You see abortion as murder? prosecute it as such. Murder laws are on the books in every state.
The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails, so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.
The Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union "oversaw the election of the two-thirds majorities necessary in both houses of Congress to initiate what became the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
See http://prohibition.history.ohio-state.edu/asl/
The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago
"The day is unlikely to come when the eighteenth amendment will be repealed."
--President Warren Harding, 2nd Annual Message, December 8, 1922
What a stupidly false claim.
The Commerce Clause empowers Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), which made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." This was so because the act "neither regulate[d] a commercial activity nor contain[ed] a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1626. Proyect argues that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Lopez, and its renewed willingness to place limits on congressional power, render his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) invalid. We disagree.
Even if you ignore the link, you would have to be astounding ignorant to be unaware of Lopez.
Irrelevant. There are dry counties in the states, but controlled by the state constitutions. The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution. 125 -WT-
The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails,
Not so. Dry counties are 'regulating' the public sale & drinking of booze. A fiat prohibition on private use would be a constitutional violation.
so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.
So you decree, just as all prohibitionists love fiat decrees.
Move to Singapore roscoe, if you love 'benevolent' dictatorships.
I didn't switch anything; I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary to explain it. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.
"Local" prohibitions are done under the police power of the state. The police power can be activated by anything that presents a danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The polpow is extensive and unlimited, but the danger must be specified and demonstratable, must be constitutional, and the remedy being possible and effective. Read the Slaughterhouse cases for more.
Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow. In the case of alcohol, some states left it up to counties. I would be more than happy to see regulation of vegetation and it products where it belongs, in the STATES.
The police power is not constitutional. You probably won't find the phrase "police power" in the text of the constitutions, I haven't seen it in the several I've read through. I didn't read them word for word.
The police power is common law. Without it the state couldn't keep order at all, so couldn't exist. The existence of a state implies police powers.
The federal government has none of this, or at least is not supposed to. Every power the fed has is in the constitution because the fed originated as a construct for the states where people actually lived. People do not live in the United States unles they're living in a federal district. They live in a state.
States can't be made to enforce a federal law. The sheriff of a county can summarily eject federal officers (offfice of sheriff is second in executive power for a state). The states can't be made to do a great many things. That's why the feds came up with a redistribution of money back to the states, with strings attached.
The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.
The fed's ghost of a police power has had only the authority given to it by the media. And the people they influence. That's why 1-8-3 is successful now, but wouldn't have been successful in 1919. Notice it is the only one that could be stretched with any rational excuse, but the act of choosing a 1-8 power to use shows by that very fact it was to be used for a purpose not to just to regulate commerce.
In that sense, any clause could be hijacked to authorize anything Congress wants to do, thereby producing an "alternative" to an amendment.
So, no, only an amendment could be used. Until the system had time to turn out dumb citizens.
The "Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union" would have only considered it because they were morons, as was duly proved when by trying to prohibit an item with a large natural market.
That, or there are judges that have little idea of what the law says or means, maybe like those appointed or elected that were successful divorce lawyers.
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.