It wouldn't have to have been an amendment to make alcohol illegal, it's just that there was enough backing at the time that they were able to make it illegal. There are acts passed by the government all the time that limit or allow certain things. Once there was an amendment making alcohol illegal, however, it took another amendment to repeal it.
Stop being a ****in' moron. An amendment was required because we did not have the current BS interstate commerce interpretation. The federal government, before FDR, had it's powers limitated to the powers enunciated in Article1Section 8 of the Constitution. Our Constitution limited the power of the federal government. Federal laws against drugs are unconstitutional under any any rational reading of the Constitution.
Why on Earth hasn't anyone challenged the Constitutionality of the drug abuse prevention and controlled substance act from 1970? You would think that the ACLU or some other organization like that would have been all over this like a fly on kaka. Oh, yea. Stop being f'in ass. I was remembering something I read a while back, about it but went back and they were talking about laws in individual states and their Constitution. I misread it.
O0H, my ****in' God. Like you believe the ACLU stands for the Constitution. Let me explain something, junior, the ACLU was founded by a former president of the American Communist Party. They don't give a damn about the constitution. No, back in the 30's the Constitution was disgraced. It has got worse ever since. 90% of the crap congress does today is unconstitututional by any rational reading of our once great constitution. A quote from the "Father of the Constitution" "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison
I guess you missed this part. I didn't exactly mean the ACLU, I meant some kind of organization that fights laws that are unconstitutional. I just said ACLU, who I personally despise, because it was the only such organization I could think of of the top of my head. Settle down. You're gonna have a coronary.
You are the one that named the ACLU. Now, name me the organization that supports the Constitution from the originalist point of view and explain to me how they can get through Justice Kennedy and the four commies and return our constitution to the place it was at pre-FDR? The fact is , junior, activist judges have rendered our constitution null and void. Our constitution was not friendly to socialism.
Hugo, you seem to be getting a tad flustered. As far as the federal government and it making amendments...... The constitution was written by men who had no idea the populace would turn inward to selfish desires and ignore the best interests of the comminities. You must remember that during the time of the constitution being written, lots of people gave a lot to give this Country a chance. Humans cannot even make a grocery list and keep to it, what makes anyone think that a few men could write a constitution capable of being perfect forever? I don't see you complaining about other amandments, how about the 5th amendment covering due process, or the 13th amandment, to end slavery, or 19th amendment that allows women the right to vote? The constitution never comanded these amendments, but they were made for the good of the Country. If we were to go back to pure constitutional government, we need to leave behind many of the best parts of America. But I do agree with you about the ACLU, their nothing more than a socialist agenda machine.
Excuse me, I am not complaining about any of the amendments. That was the way the founding fathers left open to allow for change. There has been no amendment providing the federal government power to fight the drug war, The drug war, just like SS, is blatantly unconstitutional at the federal level. Actually, the fouding fathers were very aware of the threat of mob rule. That is why they required amendments to increase federal power that required large majorities. The founding fathers were very aware of men's selfish desires. Much more aware than we are today, There are no Jefferso's, Madisons or Washingtons today.
I don't know. Has anyone even tried? Someone like the Constitutionalist Party. I'm sure there is a group out there. I mean, if Larry Flint can win a case in the Supreme Court for Pornography, you would think an intelligent argument could be made for the unconstitutionality of laws that obviously go against the powers of the Federal government.
I don't relly see your point to be honest. You don't mind if the government does some things but you mind if they do others. Do you complain that the federal Government regulates prescription drugs? Do you complain that the government regulates stock exchanges? How about insuring bank deposits? I can make a list over a mile long of things not specifically spelled out in the constitution or an amendment but are still being done. How about food stamps or road construction? School funds? College grants? Business loans? It goes on forever. The point I am making is no matter what way you slice it, drugs and the selfish minds that abuse them (yes, including booze) are bad for society. They tear at the very fabric that made our Nation great. This goes back to morals. As our morals decline, we see things like increased substance abuse, abortions, divorce rates, crime of all kinds, and even a decline of motivation in the populace. It is the "me" factor where all that matters to someone is themselves, not their community, not the kids on the street, not even their own mother, all that matters is their persuit of their own enjoyment and gratification. We should want people to be more responsible to society, not less so.
Yes, it has been tried. The originalist arguments have been rejected by the USSC since the FDR era. Our Constitution is no longer worth the paper it is printed on.
The powers of the federal government are clearly enunciated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. A few quotes: "[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14 "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45 "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792 Note the reference to "General Welfare." Please do not confuse this with "social welfare" as we know it today, or public charity. The two are distinctly different as will be addressed later in detail "The Constitution allows only the means which are necessary, not those which are merely convenient, for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791 "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 There we have it! Proof that both the Father of the Constitution and unquestionably our nation's foremost expert on the Constitution, James Madison, AND the Father of American Independence, Thomas Jefferson, specifically acknowledging Congressional powers to be strictly limited and defined - quite a long shot from today! One distinction must be noted though. Jefferson and Madison were by no means representative of the opinions of all the framers. They were both strict constitutionalists representative of those very fearful of the strength of the new government. For that reason I turn to the other side most represented in Alexander Hamilton - one that believed in a looser interpretation. "This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83 How about this quote:
You avoided my question, none of the things I mentioned, and I can name hundreds if needed, are covered specifically by the constitution or an amendment, or artical 1 section 8 for that matter. Do you believe these things I mentioned should be removed? Government has a responsibility to look after it's citizens. Part of that is the threat these drugs pose to society. Kidnaping someone and crossing a state line is a federal offence, why? What part of the constitution gives the federal government the right to make this a crime at the federal level? The reason is one state cannot have power over another state, so they need an outside authority to create a bridge so justice can be done. The same holds true for drugs or anything else that can bleed over into more then one state. The federal government allows things to be consistant (to a point). If something is illegal in one state, it should be illegal in another state. Desegragation was forced by the federal government because the states were not doing it themselves. Over population of prisons is governed by the federal government because the states will not do it on their own. I understand the original intent of the founding fathers was to have each state independant of each other. Laws were never intended to be the same, if you did not like the local laws, you moved. Each State was to be like it's own Country, with just a basic framework of a national government to share news and provide a national defense when needed. So, again I ask you if you want to turn back the hands of time, go back to each state being independant, to only have a federal Government for the purpose of defending the nation?
Wow, I suggest you read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution you will find that the powers of the federal government exceed just defending the nation. The federal government has also been designated additional powers by subsequent amendments. None of those amendments gave the federal government authority to wage the current drug war. It should be a state issue. Let me make it easy for you. Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Although I see these men as great men, they were far from perfect men. Take Washington for example. Within five years of the inception of the US Constitution, Washington used the US Army to quell the Whisky Rebellion against the people of the United States to enforce a tax law that was unfairly biased against the small time alcohol distiller. At the time what Washington did was legal, but it was a law that discriminated against the poor. Sounds like the same issues we have today, with catering to big business.
I feel like I am back in 5th grade. I am well aware of what it says and I guess I am back to repeating my self over and over with the same question to try and get an answer. Again, I have given you several examples of things the Government does and how none of these things are specifically allowed under the constitution, or amendments. If you like some of these things, then like all of them, you cannot pick and choose what national issues are okay for the Government to step in on without an amendment and what ones they cannot. It is an all or nothing kind of thing. The question I am asking is pretty simple and I do not understand why your refusing to answer it to be honest. Considering the many things currently in place and not supported by the constitution, would you prefer that we simply go back to the original intent of the founding fathers and have every state like it's own Country without the Federal Government managing things? Everything from managing prison over crowding to road construction would end. Assistance to poorer states would end. The FBI, CIA, all government agencies are not allowed under the constitution with specific language. Almost everything the Government does does not have "specific" language allowing. So, either the government is allowed to fill in the blanks or not.
