Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

[cissycicle]

STOP IT!!! BOTH OF YOU NEED TO GROW UP!!! QUIT ARUGING LIKE CHILDREN!!!

There thats better.

BE, you're not planning on bringing out the "ROLLING PIN" are you?

[jk]

I think you may have missed the point of the argument. A1S8 clearly gives the general government of the Union the power to:



The point is that there is no Delegated power to the general government of the Union to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs since the repeal of that delegated power.



The Tenth Amendment clearly states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

that does not address my post which was in response to a very specific post by you. I did prove your post to be incorrect. Trying to twist it now will do no good. You lied.

You have been arguing the fed does not have the right to control interstate commerce. I posted some of the statements, from you, that make that arguement. You proved yourself wrong.

[blueeagle]

BE, you're not planning on bringing out the "ROLLING PIN" are you?

Well, the drama needs to cease. I,m aware of how peculiar Dan is at times, but that hardly vindicates this imbecilic argument.

[jk]

Well, the drama needs to cease. I,m aware of how peculiar Dan is at times, but that hardly vindicates this imbecilic argument.

imbecilic arguement? I am simply calling him on his "both sides of the fence" position and supported my position after his denial. what is your problem with that?

and since this in the debate forum and it is dan's thread, why should you care?

and to your input and this last post of yours:

pot, meet kettle.

[blueeagle]

imbecilic arguement? I am simply calling him on his "both sides of the fence" position and supported my position after his denial. what is your problem with that?

and since this in the debate forum and it is dan's thread, why should you care?

and to your input and this last post of yours:

pot, meet kettle.

Just ignore him, JK! Further debating him will not change his point of view. Hell, he doesn't even know that the hell he's talking about! This is probably something he thought of when he was stoned the other night!!!

[cyjeff]

You are still comparing apples and oranges in our federal form of government. No one is claiming states cannot pass legislation that affects its citizenry, especially if it affects the domestic tranquility of the state. However, there is no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce by the general government of the Union. Your argument would have more a basis for relevance, if there were still a prohibition amendment enumerating that power of that government.

Why was it felt that they need the legal and political precedent of a prohibition amendment, if the general government of the Union had the power you claim concerning powerful, mood altering drugs?

Regulating military materiel is a specifically enumerated power in A1S8.

I am not sure how you have any basis for your conclusion when there is no Constitutional enumeration of that power, since its repeal as a power of the general government of the Union? States' rights have more of a Constitutional basis under the Tenth Amendment concerning powers of the general government that are not specifically enumerated.

Boy, are you daft?

You state, with one sentence, that no one is debating whether or not states can regulate and prohibit certain transactions within their borders and then say that you don't understand how anyone can prohibit anything.

The federal government was founded and designed for just this purpose. To regulate matters that manifested between and among the states.

I will wait while you dig out that dog eared copy of the Constitution that your Grammy gave you at your bar mitzvah.

If a state can legalize (and, conversely, make illegal) a substance, so can the fed when interstate transportation is made.

[jk]

Boy, are you daft?

.

speaking of daft; anybody like daft punk?

DP1

DP2

and the one that just didn't quite work

[cyjeff]

A little background on Danny...

He first tried to come up with a Constitutional argument against the seizure of illegal drugs.

Now, he is trying to figure out how to create drug "safe zones" within the US.

I would think it would just be easier to convince a doctor he has glacoma.

[jk]

or move to Denmark or whatever country it is legal

[danielpalos]

that does not address my post which was in response to a very specific post by you. I did prove your post to be incorrect. Trying to twist it now will do no good. You lied.

You have been arguing the fed does not have the right to control interstate commerce. I posted some of the statements, from you, that make that arguement. You proved yourself wrong.

The words in question were Regulate and Prohibit. Why have you brought Control into the argument? I read somewhere that there is a legal maxim that states that if a different word is used, it is because there is a different meaning associated to it.

I have not been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states, to Regulate commerce among those states.

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.