This is a carry over from the discussion of the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
If you look carefully at what the government does today almost all federal powers are based on art1sec8, clause, often misappropriately called the interstate commerce clause. It's the one that talks about the power to regulate trade between the indian tribes, foreign nations and among the several states states. Until recently the SC and other courts used this to grant the federal government plenary power. For instance the gun bans we suffer under are all purportedly predicated on this clause. The infamous extention of this clause occured during the 30s when a man was charged with growing corn on his own property and feeding it to his hogs(Wickard vs. Filburn). The court said that while this wasn't interstate commerce, it affected interstate commerce so therefore the federal government had authority to regulate it. This is preposterous. I'm an economist and the one thing I can assure you is everything affects interstate commerce. That is the nature of an economy, everything affects everything else.
But this is preposterous and absurd, and even the SC is starting to tailor it back, as in Lopez decision, the VAWA decision, and the federal arson decision.
The federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to make marijuana illegal or legal, it is a state issue. The whole point of the 10th amendment is that any power that isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or the People.
Therefore, as I continue my rant, the federal government does have to have a specifically enumerated power to ban our guns, or any feature of them. This is why ALL federal gun "laws" are unconstitutional as well as much of the rest of the "laws" against all sorts of things. The art 1 sec 8 power no more grants the federal government the authority to ban owning semi-auto rifles in Texas than it does in France. Further they can't regulate the trade in ways that would 'infringe' on our right to keep and bear these arms. Such as imposing a high tax on interstate sale of these arms.
So when I asked where the feds get the authority to ban marijuana etc., this is the point I was trying to make. They don't have that authority; to ban alcohol they rightly realized they had to pass a Consitutional amendment. However since we no longer follow the Constitution today, they do whatever the hell they feel like. This, in my mind, is the most important issue we face, and the only plausible way we have to regain our rights. Reinstate FEDERALISM.
Rant mode off.
Valdez
[This message has been edited by Valdez (edited October 25, 2000).]
If you look carefully at what the government does today almost all federal powers are based on art1sec8, clause, often misappropriately called the interstate commerce clause. It's the one that talks about the power to regulate trade between the indian tribes, foreign nations and among the several states states. Until recently the SC and other courts used this to grant the federal government plenary power. For instance the gun bans we suffer under are all purportedly predicated on this clause. The infamous extention of this clause occured during the 30s when a man was charged with growing corn on his own property and feeding it to his hogs(Wickard vs. Filburn). The court said that while this wasn't interstate commerce, it affected interstate commerce so therefore the federal government had authority to regulate it. This is preposterous. I'm an economist and the one thing I can assure you is everything affects interstate commerce. That is the nature of an economy, everything affects everything else.
But this is preposterous and absurd, and even the SC is starting to tailor it back, as in Lopez decision, the VAWA decision, and the federal arson decision.
The federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to make marijuana illegal or legal, it is a state issue. The whole point of the 10th amendment is that any power that isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States or the People.
Therefore, as I continue my rant, the federal government does have to have a specifically enumerated power to ban our guns, or any feature of them. This is why ALL federal gun "laws" are unconstitutional as well as much of the rest of the "laws" against all sorts of things. The art 1 sec 8 power no more grants the federal government the authority to ban owning semi-auto rifles in Texas than it does in France. Further they can't regulate the trade in ways that would 'infringe' on our right to keep and bear these arms. Such as imposing a high tax on interstate sale of these arms.
So when I asked where the feds get the authority to ban marijuana etc., this is the point I was trying to make. They don't have that authority; to ban alcohol they rightly realized they had to pass a Consitutional amendment. However since we no longer follow the Constitution today, they do whatever the hell they feel like. This, in my mind, is the most important issue we face, and the only plausible way we have to regain our rights. Reinstate FEDERALISM.
Rant mode off.
Valdez
[This message has been edited by Valdez (edited October 25, 2000).]