Ron Paul

[LawBot5000]

Simple possession of marijuana is not interstate commerce. Selling it interstate is interstate commerce, but that isn't what is being punished. The relation to interstate commerce is a token connection that only pays lip service to the constitution.

And it needs to stop.

 

[publius]

Dr. Paul on the partial birth abortion ban:

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

Can anyone find a statement from any of the other candidates which questions the very fountainhead of federal power, the commerce clause?

If so, I will examine voting for that candidate. Until then, Dr. Paul is my man, come what may.

 

[budney]

The founders thought the opposite...

[blockquote]
To suggest that we don't need the CIA and that as president he would get rid of it is ridiculous. To state that we should never use assassination as a tool of force is equally ridiculous.
[/blockquote]
The founders didn't believe in a standing army, let alone a covert organization running around assassinating foreign leaders. They created the 2A for exactly that reason: they believed that an armed populace was the best insurance against invasion from without and tyranny from within.

I'm always troubled when I see patriotic Americans confusing their nation with their government. They're two different things. I'm even more troubled when I see pro-2A patriots confusing the well-regulated militia with the government's military and police. The two are more or less opposites--the 2A was written to prevent standing armies, and today standing armies are one of the reasons advanced against the 2A.

--Len.

 

[LawBot5000]

The founding fathers used spies and what would quality today as intelligence gathering, but I dont think anyone formlized it into a permanent governmental body. If you want an enumerated power, you could say it exists in the ambassador powers of the president and it wouldnt even be a stretch since most spies operate out of embassies anyway.

The far bigger question is not whether the federal government has the power to engage in spying on foreign governments, but to which of the three branches these agencies belong to.... The answer is "none of the above."

 

[Titan6]

The founding fathers found out quite quickly after establishing the nation that having little/ no standing military was a foolish pipe dream.

The issue with the agency is not so much intel gathering (spying/whatever) but the idiotic things they do that cause bigger problems than they solve.

 

[budney]

[blockquote]
The founding fathers found out quite quickly after establishing the nation that having little/ no standing military was a foolish pipe dream.
[/blockquote]
Debatable. Most of America's wars (excluding the revolution) have been non-defensive in nature, including the Spanish-American war and the war of Northern Aggression, the Korean War and WWI. Offensive war is impossible without a standing army. But defensive war is possible without a standing army, as the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies demonstrate--not to mention the American Revolution itself.

If America, like Switzerland, armed every male between 15 and 60 with a battle rifle and small arms, there would arguably be no need for a standing army today. We'd of course have to pull out of South Korea, Germany and the other 130 or so countries in which we have troops stationed--but that would be a very good thing. "Free trade with all; entangling alliances with none."

--Len.

 

[STAGE 2]

If you disagree with Paul on the drug war, you are agreeing that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal use IS interstate commerce, because that is the current state of the law, and that is how the commerce clause is being used.

You missed my point. I agree with a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. Stuff grown for personal concumption clearly isn't in interstate commerce. That said however, the states still have the authority to regulate it, and I feel they should.

I agree with Paul that the feds have over extended themselves, but I disagree with in so far as he follows the libertarian platform of legalization. I want the same results we have now, but done properly.

 

[budney]

[blockquote]
I agree with Paul that the feds have over extended themselves, but I disagree with in so far as he follows the libertarian platform of legalization.
[/blockquote]
I'm with you--but I think you aren't thinking big enough. Alcoholism is even more dangerous than "soft" drugs such as marijuana, and alcohol-related disease and DUI take many more lives each year than marijuana. For this reason, I think we should ban not only drugs, but also alcohol. If alcohol were prohibited throughout the country, we could expect much less crime and improved health.

--Len.

 

[publius]

I agree with Paul that the feds have over extended themselves, but I disagree with in so far as he follows the libertarian platform of legalization. I want the same results we have now, but done properly.

Excellent. Paul will get the feds out of the drug war, and it can be done by the States, as it properly should be. I hope we can count on your vote for Paul in the Republican primary out there. We both know your electoral votes in California will go to the Democrat, so it matters less what you do in the general election, and I hope you'll write in Paul in that one too.

 

[Titan6]

Len- Baby steps. First we ban tobacco which kills more people every year than alcohol and pot combined. Then we ban alcohol and finnally guns. With the new utopia we will be able to get rid of the ATF and everyone will live and peace and harmony for the rest of their days. It is for the children...

 

[STAGE 2]

Excellent. Paul will get the feds out of the drug war

Incorrect. Paul can't prohibit the feds from banning drugs that are in interstate commerce. That includes everything that comes across the border (a very large percentage) as well as anything crossing state lines.

The idea that the a proper application of the commerce clause would totally invalidate the feds ability to ban narcotics is just as ridiculous and incorrect as the idea that someone growing tomatoes in their backyard for tonights salad is engaging in interstate commerce.

 

[Noble]

Ron Paul is a great guy, I met with him in Washington once upon a time. He is a man of principle and I have a great deal of respect for him. He is a staunch Constitutionalist and does everything he can to uphold it. I cannot say enough good things about this guy.

Paul for President

 

[PaladinX13]

Someone needs to read the dissents of Justice O'Connor & Justice Thomas in Gonzales v. Raich.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Len- Baby steps. First we ban tobacco which kills more people every year than alcohol and pot combined. Then we ban alcohol and finnally guns. With the new utopia we will be able to get rid of the ATF and everyone will live and peace and harmony for the rest of their days. It is for the children...

Obesity is a tremendously large epidemic, especially in America. Maybe the government needs to regulate food? I have seen some people that need this. If your mass body index is over 25 you will be stripped of your food stamps and forced to exercise until you are at an acceptable weight. It’s for the babies mommas. Problem solved…

Actually, we need to legalize drugs and tax the people who are dumb enough to use them. The few, the proud, the drug users are going to use them whether they are legal or illegal. By making them illegal you give gangs something to sell. The best way to fight ignorance is to educate. Forcing people to follow your morals doesnt work very good. Trying that is like :banghead:

 

[Silver Bullet]

Actually, we need to legalize drugs and tax the people who are dumb enough to use them.

I like it. Make drugs a source of income to the government instead of an expense.

Income taxes should be reduced accordingly: the sum of the drug taxes plus the savings in not pursuing and prosecuting and jailing the druggies. The druggies will be subsidizing the rest of us !

 

[PaladinX13]

Maybe the government needs to regulate food?

Already happening... for example, the fois gras bans in California & Illinois (with New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts waiting in the wings). They use the same tactics going after guns. Chicago would have banned veal under the same reasoning except that it was "too popular"... marginalized, divide, and conquer... .50 BMG bans, etc.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Don't forget about the trans-fat ban in NYC.

Where do all the sin taxes (cigarettes, booze) currently end up allocated towards? I'm not sure if they are strictly state level or a share of state and federal taxation.

 

[gego]

Of all the presidential candidates during my lifetime, Ron Paul is the only one who I think represents my views.

If you have noticed that libertarian candidates rarely get more than 5% of the vote which should tell you something about what 95% of the voters believe. Clearly the belief in freedom is meaningless statistically.

Maybe Ron Paul running as a Republican in a field so unworthy may do a little better than 5%, but I don't think he will get much notice as other than a curiosity. If you want to predict the future just look at the possibilities and determine which one is most probable and that is what is going to happen. It may be possible that you will win the lottery, but the probability is that you will not, so if you buy a ticket you pretty much know you will not hit the jackpot.

People want to be free themselves, but not trust their neighbors to live a life unregulated by government so they vote against freedom time and time again. That is not going to change, so Ron Paul is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket. He is going to lose and whoever is going to bring more government laws to control you life is going to win.

 

[publius]

Incorrect. Paul can't prohibit the feds from banning drugs that are in interstate commerce. That includes everything that comes across the border (a very large percentage) as well as anything crossing state lines.

The idea that the a proper application of the commerce clause would totally invalidate the feds ability to ban narcotics is just as ridiculous and incorrect as the idea that someone growing tomatoes in their backyard for tonights salad is engaging in interstate commerce.

Perhaps today, but that was not always true.

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

Back when people remembered the purpose of the commerce clause, cannabis was banned in a different way, using the power of Congress to tax as a power to ban, just as with the NFA.

I think Dr. Paul knows that bit of history, and realizes that "all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" were intended to be State concerns, and the commerce clause was intended to prevent trade wars among the States and present a common marketplace to the world.

 

[STAGE 2]

A letter by one man does not an interpretation make.

The bottom line is that the constitution explicitly grants to the feds the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states".

What it is, is what it says. Inherent in the power to regulate is the power to prohibit. If the framers wanted something different then they had the ability to create it.

However even if I were to agree with this interpretation, it still does not prevent the feds from banning drugs that come in from other countries. Even Madison conceded that the feds originally had the power to regulate commerce with the foreign nations.

Since a large majority of illegal narcotics come from outside the US, even the commerce clause of the 18th century would allow the feds to prohibit it.

 

[Titan6]

If the feds really wanted to stop drugs from reaching the US they would do so. They have done it before. It is in the best interest of the feds to allow the drug trade and then to appear to fight it.

In any case I still like the Swiss experiment. Legalize drugs. All of them. Especially hard drugs like heroin. Make them available cheaply in large quantities. Let nature take it's course.

The Swiss were able to eliminate over half of their drug addict population in less than two years. The ones that did not OD killed themselves in despair. You may think I am kidding but I am not. It will be expensive at first but will be cheaper in the long run.

 

[STAGE 2]

If the feds really wanted to stop drugs from reaching the US they would do so. They have done it before. It is in the best interest of the feds to allow the drug trade and then to appear to fight it.

Anything to back that up or is that simply just your opinion, specifically about that part where they are "appearing" to fight it. I know a few agents and some widows who would love to hear that explanation.

In any case I still like the Swiss experiment.

And your evidence that this would play out exactly the same over here as it did there is what. Nevermind that there are so many different variables that it is imposssible to predict what would happen, but I really don't like the idea of having a bunch of stoners in public.

 

[publius]

A letter by one man does not an interpretation make.

...

Inherent in the power to regulate is the power to prohibit.
...


However even if I were to agree with this interpretation, it still does not prevent the feds from banning drugs that come in from other countries. Even Madison conceded that the feds originally had the power to regulate commerce with the foreign nations.

Since a large majority of illegal narcotics come from outside the US, even the commerce clause of the 18th century would allow the feds to prohibit it.

First, it sure sounded like an interpretation to me, and it was delivered not just by any "one man" but by the guy who wrote the clause in the first place.

Second, it was not just his solitary, wacky opinion. The view expressed in that quotation was the commonly held view of all of the Founders, as a reading of the Federalist Papers would show, not to mention a reading the anti-federalist writings of the time.

Third, the power to regulate was not always held to include the power to prohibit, and in fact, that very issue reached the Supreme Court. Unquestioned powers do not reach the Supreme Court.

As to the last, I assume you are talking again about the presumption of guilt, and the need to prove one's innocence, which you spoke about in post 131. I'm not so sure that the presumption of guilt is something we need to enshrine in our jurisprudence. I like the idea better that government should prove guilt, and not just presume it, before punishing citizens.

Of course, that would cut off lots of the drug war funding and policing for profit we currently see in the drug war. Following the money leads right back to the presumption of guilt when we use civil asset forfeiture laws to punish drug crimes.

 

[publius]

Even in the 20th century, the power to regulate commerce was being interpreted to exclude the power to prohibit it. From Kennedy's concurrence in Lopez:

In Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), however, the Court insisted that the power to regulate commerce "is directly the contrary of the assumed right to forbid commerce from moving," id., at 269-270, and struck down a prohibition on the interstate transportation of goods manufactured in violation of child labor laws.

 

[LawBot5000]

Yeah man, that was from the good old days when the justices still read the constitution instead of tearing off sections for toilet use.