The Interstate Commerce Clause.

[The Rabbi]

If you've been practicing for two decades and haven't gotten it right yet maybe it's time to try another game?

You think you are disagreeing with me when in fact you agree. Just admit it and go on.

 

[Contumacious]

But they don't even have a little knowledge.

Insofar as government restriction is concerned, I think it depends on what you're restricting. I actually don't think the feds should interfere with medical marijuana laws in the states for exactly the reason you stated. (Though I admit I'm hard pressed to agree with Thomas... but that's a discussion for another thread).

I hate to say this though... most things mean what the Court says they do. That's the nature of a common law system.

Actually I meant you.
Yes, Supreme Court interpretations are binding. But that doesn't mean the people are powerless.
And the court made exactly that argument in Kelo: that people could have their legislatures pass laws preventing private takings.

you know, i've practiced for almost two decades, was admitted to practice in two states, the federal courts and the USSC and written many, many petitions opposing cert during the course of my career and I don't hold myself out as having the expertise that these brain dead twits do..

In tthat case you know, or should know , that the federal judiciary is corrupt , to its core.

.

 

[William Joyce]

I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

I wish they'd stop.

The commerce clause invoked for whatever purpose pleased Congress isn't quite 200 years old... and its most abusive forms are only about 50 years old.

Contumacious correctly cites the U.S. v. Lopez case, which was decided in 1995.

And it's easy to have "jurists" do your bidding when you threaten to pack the court, a la FDR.

Bottom line is that the founding fathers never intended the federal government to be a government with power to do whatever it pleased. Today, that's exactly how it operates. Time to stick a fork in that fucker, people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jillian, thank you for pointing out that the O/P is brain damaged. These farconservtards think that because that a few of them can read at a tenth grade level that somehow they are now constitutional scholars. Their dimbulb cogitative processes create organizations such as the John Birch Society or the teahaggers. Their alternate universe includes the idea that the teabaggers are the mainstream. Wow! No wonder the Dems don't appear too worried.

 

[Contumacious]

Wow! No wonder the Dems don't appear too worried.

The "democratic" wing of the American Fascist Party is not concerned because 50% of the American electorate are parasites.

Their battle cry can be heard all over the country side " Feed Me Seymour", we want Obama Hellcare.....you get my drift.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

But they don't even have a little knowledge.

Insofar as government restriction is concerned, I think it depends on what you're restricting. I actually don't think the feds should interfere with medical marijuana laws in the states for exactly the reason you stated. (Though I admit I'm hard pressed to agree with Thomas... but that's a discussion for another thread).

I hate to say this though... most things mean what the Court says they do. That's the nature of a common law system.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

Comatose is a fucking loon.

 

[Contumacious]

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

Who the fuck care how federal bureaucrats define marihuana?

.

 

[Contumacious]

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

Comatose is a fucking loon.

RadiomanATL is a marxist motherfucker.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

Who the fuck care how federal bureaucrats define marihuana?

.

Since it tears your argument to shreds, I would think you would Comatose.

Must be that FAS kicking in again.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

Comatose is a fucking loon.

RadiomanATL is a marxist motherfucker.

.

Whatever you say, loon.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry...that will not fly.....marijuana as defined under current federal law is NOT considered a "medicine" per say.

Who the fuck care how federal bureaucrats define marihuana?

.

Since it tears your argument to shreds, I would think you would Comatose.

Must be that FAS kicking in again.

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.

But that is more than your retarded enslaved mentality can handle.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.


.

Yes, they do.


Should we have an air force?

 

[Contumacious]

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.


.

Yes, they do.


Should we have an air force?

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Is there a power granted which necessitates the creation of the Air Force?

Yes, Article 1, Section 8, authorizes Congress to raise an army and navy.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.


.

Yes, they do.


Should we have an air force?

Yes, Article 1, Section 8, authorizes Congress to raise an army and navy.

.

But no Air Force.

According to your constant never-changing arguments about everything that you think is unconstitutional (ie: if it isn't expressly and unequivocally spelled out in the Constitution, and ONLY the Constitution), the Air Force is unconstitutional.

Your argument has just been shredded. Again.

You are the weakest link.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, they do.


Should we have an air force?

Yes, Article 1, Section 8, authorizes Congress to raise an army and navy.

.

But no Air Force.

According to your constant never-changing arguments about everything that you think is unconstitutional (ie: if it isn't expressly and unequivocally spelled out in the Constitution, and ONLY the Constitution), the Air Force is unconstitutional.

Your argument has just been shredded. Again.

You are the weakest link.

Thanks for playing.

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare

That of course does not mean that Congress has the authority to provide food stamps in order to support your fat ass.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Nice way to dodge the internal inconsistencies of you arguments Comatose.

Doesn't fly though.

You lose.

 

[Contumacious]

Nice way to dodge the internal inconsistencies of you arguments Comatose.

Doesn't fly though.

You lose.

Your petition for a complete and unconditional surrender, is hereby granted. Go forth and sin no more.

.

 

[GHook93]

I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

I wish they'd stop.

Wait until KK jumps in with his responses of not in the constitution! This has to drive you nutz Jillian!

I think the Commerce Clause (Art I Section 8 cl 3) is quite clear: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, amongst the several states and with the Indian Tribes."

Hey Ihopehefails,

Good luck getting Gibbons v. Ogden! That case remains the lead case for just 185 years!

Even very recently Gonzales v. Raich upheld the current and CORRECT interpretation of the commerce clause, by Scalia! I didn't like the outcome because it had to deal with medical marijuana, but Scalia was right.

When are these people going to see that we are not a confederation of 50 independent countries formed by a treaty? We are 1 nation of 50 interlocked dependent states! If these people want 50 small weak countries then tell them to move to a South American country! If they want 1 strong country then tell them to !

Ignorance is bliss I guess!

 

[GHook93]

I think the original meaning of the clause would suffice, which was "to make regular." Meaning the federal government had the authority to enforce free trade amongst the states, and that was all.

Look KK read some case law, before you make up assumptions that are not only ignorant but foolish! We have a common law civil court systems! If you don't like it them move!

Case law interprets statutes, laws and YES the constitutions! The common law approach was adopted from England and is the basis for out civil law system.

Start with the Ogden case and work from there! If you want to be a lawyer, maybe you should start BY GOING TO LAW SCHOOL!