Nope, that's only your interpretation of it. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers in the Constitution delegated the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts, and gave the federal courts jurisdiction to, among other things, decide cases arising under he Constitution (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
It's not about your view of what is right or wrong. It's about the what is Constitutional and what is or is not legal.
You're right - it's not about my view of what's right or wrong.
I am trying to respond in a "High Road" fashion to this, so please bear with me, and if I step over the line feel free to moderate as necessary.
It seems to me that you are defending the right of the government to make up the rules as they go along whether those rules violate the intent that the Founding Fathers had or not (which, let's face it - none of us can know with 100% certainty, the intent of the founding fathers).
It is apparent to me that you have a strong bias against marijuana and its use - That's fine, and you're entitled to that opinion - but your bias has nothing to do with the constitutionality of laws regulating it - It's well known that Supreme Court Justices (the end of the line where law in this nation is concerned) are NOT objective, or else who appoints those justices wouldn't be as much of an issue where firearms rights are concerned.
The question here seems to be whether or not it's constitutional for the government to regulate ... well... everything, based on the commerce clause.
You seem to be defending the right of the government to regulate every aspect of our lives using that clause simply because it's in the constitution and if I'm mistaken please correct me.
The way I see it, you can't have it both ways - If the government can regulate everything else based on the commerce clause, then why can't they regulate firearms? If they cannot regulate everything on that basis, then why can they regulate marijuana? For that matter, what gives the government the right to regulate firearms or marijuana at all?
There's nothing in the constitution about marijuana - several of the Founding Fathers grew hemp on their own lands (granted they likely didn't smoke it). There is, however, an entire constitutional amendment relating to firearms, which we are all familiar with, which prohibits the government from making any law which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet here we are today with literally thousands of state and federal laws infringing on our firearms rights, and a product that was once one of our nation's largest cash crops rendered completely illegal.
But the government NEVER does ANYTHING that is unconstitutional, and the government is completely transparent in everything it does.
The real kicker here is that in order for something to be declared unconstitutional, someone has to file suit with the government, convince the supreme court to hear the case, extremely large sums of money must change hands, and then those same judges that are appointed by the people that make the laws get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not.
Seems to me that things aren't quite as cut and dried as they should be, if the constitution is really the end of the line and the law of the land.
