Whenever someone frames an arguent in the form, “If it applies it to X, then it also applies to Y,” their argument is specious.
The suitability of the death penalty applies to murder; it does not apply to littering.
It is appropriate for the government to criminalize drugs; it is not appropriate for the government to pursue socialist policies and programs.
Look at what you’re equating: prohibition of drug use with the imposition of socialism. It’s batty on the face of it.
You just refuse to get it: The prohibition of drugs is not “unlimited powers,” nor does it constitute “whatever in (congress’s) discretion.”
The fundamental dishonesty in the arguments your side has been attempting to make, though, is that you don’t merely want to argue that the federal government can’t prohibit drugs: your ultimate aim is to force upon us the view that no government has the authority to prohibit drugs. These references to the 10th Amendment are hypocritical in the extreme.
Much of our drug problem has actually been attacks on us by foreign powers — the USSR, for instance — and by various terrorist and communist groups that are our enemies. Attacks across our national borders, aided by the fifth column here at home.
Not only is it appropriate that the federal government should address a problem that crosses our national borders, it is utterly beyond the powers of the states to do so.
The fact that some of our government agencies have become jack-booted Nazi thugs is a problem, but it is a separate matter from the propriety of drug prohibition.
It is inappropriate for fedgov to do either, your pet issue notwithstanding. You don't get to carve out an exception.
Look at what you're equating: prohibition of drug use with the imposition of socialism. It's batty on the face of it.
You really need to read Madison. Both are corruptions of not only the GW Clause, but of the Commerce Clause as well. Wickard has allowed Congress to legislate over health, guns, the environment, and the WOD. You're stuck with legitimizing them all if you support Wickard. So I ask...
do you think Wickard is consistent with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... yes or no?
You just refuse to get it: The prohibition of drugs is not "unlimited powers," nor does it constitute "whatever in (congress's) discretion."
You are in error. If Congress can impose a national prohibition as a regulation of commerce or under the guise of providing for the GW, it can impose Obamacare and Cap & Trade. You have no principled constitutional argument against the latter two.
The fundamental dishonesty in the arguments your side has been attempting to make, though, is that you don't merely want to argue that the federal government can't prohibit drugs: your ultimate aim is to force upon us the view that no government has the authority to prohibit drugs. These references to the 10th Amendment are hypocritical in the extreme.
I believe States have such authority with regard to drugs, just like they currently do with alcohol.
Much of our drug problem has actually been attacks on us by foreign powers - the USSR, for instance - and by various terrorist and communist groups that are our enemies. Attacks across our national borders, aided by the fifth column here at home. Not only is it appropriate that the federal government should address a problem that crosses our national borders, it is utterly beyond the powers of the states to do so.
AFAIK, no one is arguing otherwise with regard to Congress legislating over drugs crossing the borders. The dispute is over which government - fedgov or the states - have constitutional authority over intrastate drug policies. So I await your "yes" or "no" on the Wickard question in bold above.