• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Constitution is not a Restaurant Menu

I don't know the entire history, but I believe it's been customary for state and local authorities to cooperate with the FBI, etc. whenever they could. I don't think the CSA in general is an abuse of the Commerce Clause, because obviously there is an interstate traffic in illicit drugs like heroin and cocaine. What made Raich tricky was that the marijuana involved had never moved between states. The opinion is complex, but it discusses the Commerce Clause issue you raise in detail. Wickard v. Filburn is an earlier Commerce Clause case that involved a loosely related question. The problem in both cases was that local acts inevitably have some interstate effect, however small. I disagree with the majority's decision in both Wickard and Raich.

I've read Wickard and don't agree with it for the reason you've stated - that any local act can be construed as having an interstate effect and give Congress control over the states that I don't think the founders intended and is, more to the point detrimental to the country as a whole.

I've only read a summary of Raich but have some free time to read tonight and may read the opinion.

Thank you as usual for an enlightening discussion.
 
I've read Wickard and don't agree with it for the reason you've stated - that any local act can be construed as having an interstate effect and give Congress control over the states that I don't think the founders intended and is, more to the point detrimental to the country as a whole.

I've only read a summary of Raich but have some free time to read tonight and may read the opinion.

Thank you as usual for an enlightening discussion.

Thanks. There was a lot of discussion before Raich about how Justice Scalia would vote, but he ended up voting with the majority. I have a hunch that's one he wished he could have back. Not surprisingly, in the Obamacare case several years later, the government relied on both Wickard and Raich as authority for the strange proposition that Congress may use its power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy health insurance policies. After all, our personal decisions to buy or not buy things affect interstate commerce in those things. But the Court didn't buy the Commerce Clause argument for the individual mandate.
 
I don't believe either Bush ever said any such thing.

Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. Personally, I don't care.

What is certain is that he governed as though the constitution did not exist. He governed as though it was a piece of toilet paper. He governed in accordance with the Neocon notion of the Unitary Executive. He governed like Richard Nixon. He admitted to Congress, on TV, that he willfully violated the FISA act. He and his successor both are war criminals.
 
Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. Personally, I don't care.

What is certain is that he governed as though the constitution did not exist. He governed as though it was a piece of toilet paper. He governed in accordance with the Neocon notion of the Unitary Executive. He governed like Richard Nixon. He admitted to Congress, on TV, that he willfully violated the FISA act. He and his successor both are war criminals.

You claimed he did. As Perry Mason used to ask: Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?
 
You claimed he did. As Perry Mason used to ask: Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?

What part of "personally, I don't care" do you not understand?

What part of "the way he governed" do you not understand?
 
It is a troubling thing that both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly willing to flout the Constitution and condone lawless behavior.

The Constitution isn’t a restaurant menuBy Hugh Hewitt

There is a deep divide in the United States, and it isn’t blue-red or liberal-conservative. It’s between those who believe in applying the law as it exists and those who think they have the right — through various government authorities — to ignore laws they don’t like.
“Rule of law” conservatives are a subset of the coalition that elected President Trump. They were concerned about the vacancy on the Supreme Court (and a hundred federal bench vacancies below it); executive orders and regulations that greatly overreached existing statutory authority; and the general idea — spreading like kudzu — that dulyenacted laws can be ignored by federal, state and local officials when inconvenient to the perceived “will of the people.”
They were concerned, in other words, about preserving constitutional government.
Sanctuary cities and marijuana legalization statutes are examples of local and state governments ignoring federal law. But federal authorities and elected officials who vent about those subjects should look to their own disregard of the law. Two recent instances of the lawlessness of Beltway elites concern the U.S.-Mexico border barrier and the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im). . . .

To be honest, people misunderstand the power of the constitution. The Constitution does not have magical powers which enable it to defend itself. It's only as good as what the politicians currently in office can or cannot get away with via convincing voters to reelect them. Even the judges are political players in the grand scheme of things. That so few people understand this baffles me to no end.
 
It is a troubling thing that both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly willing to flout the Constitution and condone lawless behavior.

The Constitution isn’t a restaurant menuBy Hugh Hewitt

There is a deep divide in the United States, and it isn’t blue-red or liberal-conservative. It’s between those who believe in applying the law as it exists and those who think they have the right — through various government authorities — to ignore laws they don’t like.
“Rule of law” conservatives are a subset of the coalition that elected President Trump. They were concerned about the vacancy on the Supreme Court (and a hundred federal bench vacancies below it); executive orders and regulations that greatly overreached existing statutory authority; and the general idea — spreading like kudzu — that dulyenacted laws can be ignored by federal, state and local officials when inconvenient to the perceived “will of the people.”
They were concerned, in other words, about preserving constitutional government.
Sanctuary cities and marijuana legalization statutes are examples of local and state governments ignoring federal law. But federal authorities and elected officials who vent about those subjects should look to their own disregard of the law. Two recent instances of the lawlessness of Beltway elites concern the U.S.-Mexico border barrier and the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im). . . .

The Constitution, and the history and reasoning behind it have been under attack since country was formed. The country has been under attack by the bankers and oligarchs from the beginning, and their power has been increasing as time has gone by.
The Constitution ensured the country would be under the control of the people, and that is in direct conflict with the wealthy who would strive to own and control every one and every thing in the country.

Once you understand that undisputable truth, everything else begins to make perfect sense.
 
The Constitution, and the history and reasoning behind it have been under attack since country was formed. The country has been under attack by the bankers and oligarchs from the beginning, and their power has been increasing as time has gone by.
The Constitution ensured the country would be under the control of the people, and that is in direct conflict with the wealthy who would strive to own and control every one and every thing in the country.

Once you understand that undisputable truth, everything else begins to make perfect sense.

The Constitution was written to allow rich and poor alike to participate in governance.
 
The Constitution was written to allow rich and poor alike to participate in governance.

The issue of governance is what is the real issue. The Constitution strictly limits the power of governance. The wealthy have distorted government giving it power it was never intended to have and passed illegal laws giving the government powers it does not legally have.
Once the government has excessive power, then the rich can control the country by controlling the government by way of bribes and corruption.
 
The issue of governance is what is the real issue. The Constitution strictly limits the power of governance. The wealthy have distorted government giving it power it was never intended to have and passed illegal laws giving the government powers it does not legally have.
Once the government has excessive power, then the rich can control the country by controlling the government by way of bribes and corruption.

I don't share your assessment.
 
The issue of governance is what is the real issue. The Constitution strictly limits the power of governance. The wealthy have distorted government giving it power it was never intended to have and passed illegal laws giving the government powers it does not legally have.
Once the government has excessive power, then the rich can control the country by controlling the government by way of bribes and corruption.

A variation on that theme is that government tends to usurp power not given it by the contract, and is a very well established pattern in the history of all governments.

The humans in office usurp powers not delegated. Yes, in many if not most cases that is manipulated by special interests.
 
A variation on that theme is that government tends to usurp power not given it by the contract, and is a very well established pattern in the history of all governments.

The humans in office usurp powers not delegated. Yes, in many if not most cases that is manipulated by special interests.

The only thing I would change is all humans usurp powers period. It is human nature for people to exhibit greed and lust when it comes to things they desire, and power is a very desirable object. It is the very reason government is always to be feared and why it needs to be kept as small and powerless as is feasible. People will always abuse power, and they will always use power to obtain more power. It is just human nature.
 
Back
Top Bottom