|
|
#1
03-14-2007, 07:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Where In The Constitution...
...is Congress empowered to make such laws on things such as drugs (1970 Controlled Substances Act)?
The news article below made me wonder...as well as making me think (again) that the federal government has probably overstepped its Constitutional limits (perhaps not so much in the court ruling as in making the law in the first place). AP 
|
|
#2
03-14-2007, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
It all relates back to interstate commerce in some way. They have stretched that clause so far it is disgusting.
|
|
#4
03-14-2007, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
[ QUOTE ]
It all relates back to interstate commerce in some way. They have stretched that clause so far it is disgusting. [/ QUOTE ] So how are the feds allowed to go after those medicinal weed growers in California who are only selling to people in California?
|
|
#5
03-14-2007, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
I think you have to go back to Gibbons vs Ogden and move forward from there too.
|
|
#6
03-14-2007, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It all relates back to interstate commerce in some way. They have stretched that clause so far it is disgusting. [/ QUOTE ] So how are the feds allowed to go after those medicinal weed growers in California who are only selling to people in California? [/ QUOTE ] The same way it is if you grow your own cornfeed for your pigs that you sell within your own state. That's interstate commerce don't you know? Although I'm not a big fan of original intent as a guiding principle to constitional law, it's worth noting that the original intent of the commerce clause was almost certainly to prevent interstate tariffs, NOT to give the federal govt power to regulate every minute aspect of the economy (and justify legislated morality like the drug laws are). natedogg
|
|
#7
03-14-2007, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to go back to Gibbons vs Ogden and move forward from there too. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, so I found this: Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government which provides a historical overview. I'm aware that the Commerce Clause, and the General Welfare clause, have been used to increase the powers of the federal government, in various venues...is there anything else in the Constitution that empowers Congress to pass laws such as the 1970 Controlled Substances Act or the later Penalty law with regards to it? Some of the Penalties are very severe and appear to me to go far beyond what would be required for "regulation". When a regulation is broken, regarding many other things besides drugs, one doesn't expect to see penalties such as: 40 years in prison. What is the point of Constitutionally limiting the powers of government, if a couple of clauses in the Constitution can be interpreted to give government virtually unlimited powers? That doesn't make sense to me, and appears to be a strong argument against expansive interpretation of those two clauses. The Founders were very keen on limiting the powers of government; surely they couldn't have intended it to be all a mirage, or that government should be able to do anything it wants by simply expansively interpreting a couple of clauses. I'm getting a little away from the initial question of my post (and would still like to know if there are any more specific clauses in the Constitution granting such power to Congress), but I'm also wondering just how far along the road to tyranny we already are. I don't do any drugs or have anything to do with drugs at all, but I'm not happy about this even one little bit. I thought this country was founded to be free, not to be regulated and punished. I'm really starting to get more disillusioned the more I learn. I think most people, and especially our legislators and judges, may have lost sense of the value of freedom. Maybe what one does not have to fight for one's self, one takes for granted and does not truly appreciate.
|
|
#8
03-14-2007, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
I also think part of it was when the supreme court was reprimanded by FDR for trying to block his new deal legislation. When he threatened to pack the court with his own judges then folded and passed new deal legislation. Even though they initially thought it to be outside the bounds of the national government. Things have not been the same since. I could be wrong on the historical ramifications of this event. But I am pretty sure this is accurate though.
|
|
#10
03-14-2007, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where In The Constitution...
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to go back to Gibbons vs Ogden and move forward from there too. [/ QUOTE ] You might also want to go back to McCulloch v. Maryland (which was actually a cited precendential case for Gibbons). I won't get into the details, but one of the major holdings was that Congress can do anything not restricted by the Constitution, rather than limiting Congress's powers to those enumerated. And this was before the opinion's discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The expansive view of the Commerce Clause was made possible in large part to this interpretation of Congress's powers.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
