Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually this was all a ruse anyway. Daniel has a way of getting under my skin very quickly with his fallacy claim and a few other repetitve ideas and I was simply trying to derail the train.:D

---

Well, I'm too busy to deal with him right now anyway ... maybe if I get bored this weekend ...

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

From the perspective of the republican doctrine, there is no Constitutional authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs, since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

---

OK! We get it!!! You seriously need to get laid! Oh wait, you can't!!!!!!

I usually claim I am working on my character when I am low on funds and no chicks want to make an appointment for a Yoni massage.

So you like women in mini-skirts, do ya?

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/off-...tml#post771585

Don't ya just love google!!!!

Women keep trying to convince me that honesty is a form of respect towards fellow human beings. I sometimes take them literally, instead of usually assuming it is only their propaganda machine.

Concerning nullification. I am under the impression that federal law is primarily applicable to those issues for which that government is constituted. No one is implying that the federal government doesn't have any authority to enact drug laws for consumption on federal property.

How is it, that the burden of proof does not fall on the federal government when resorting to the commerce clause in, even ambiguous, intrastate matters? It seems to me, that position clearly denies and disparages states' rights, in contravention of the 10A where a state has amended its constitution to better reflect the will of the people; and the 9A when individuals are transacting on their own initiative in such a state.

How is it that the burden of proof of interstate commerce is not more of a requirement in such matters?

Also, where is the burden of proof in regards to the efficacy of any drugs that have not been evaluated by the FDA as a form of official weights and measures? One reductio ad absurdum would suggest, that our federal congress was making decisions, that can have the effect of denying and disparaging the "will of the people" of the several states of the Union, by resorting to mere hearsay and anecdotal evidence when legislating laws concerning products that have not been officially weighed and measured.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually this was all a ruse anyway. Daniel has a way of getting under my skin very quickly with his fallacy claim and a few other repetitve ideas and I was simply trying to derail the train.:D

---

I liked the ruse. Burnt crotches > ad hominem whines - any day!

Soft, check out my new thead in Banter. :D

How is it that the burden of proof of interstate commerce is not more of a requirement in such matters?


"...that is the question..."

William Shakespeare
--Hamlet 3/1

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power, and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?