I remember reading that they were but im not 100% sure. Do the drug laws of the US federal government violate the constitution?
I think i know what you're talking about. I think it was something along the lines of how states have the right to have laws separate from federal laws.
I believe the constitutional foundation for the drug laws stems from the Interstate commerce clause. Don't ask me what that has to do with regulating drugs because I don't know.
In my opinion, 100% yes. If it took a Constitutional ammendment to ban alcohol, how can other substances of consumption be banned without one?
i wonder if anyone has tried to sue the federal government on the basis of the unconstitutionality of these laws?
If we win against the federal for healthcare reform then I'm 100 percent certain that we should go against them for war on drugs and thousands of other laws that are unconstitutional.
Yes. The liberals have taken over the judicial system, with their myths about a "living breathing constitution" that allows the commerce clause to mean one thing one day, and a different thing a different day. Don't understand how a legal document's meaning can change overnight when the words stay the same? Well, of course you don't, because you aren't a liberal judge. The federal courts have ruled that almost everything falls under the commerce clause. One of the more famous examples is this: Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Saying that a farmer had to abide by wheat quotas since the extra wheat he grew for personal use might be used to feed his chickens, and that might reduce the amount of wheat he would buy on the open market, thus impacting interstate commerce. SCOTUS started to turn back the tide of insanity in the very famous: United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Where the federal government tried to argue it could ban firearms in schools because it might eventually lead to some form of economic impact on interstate commerce. In a rare glimpse of sanity, O'Connor joined the majority and delivered a blow for freedom. There is another famous case, which never made it to SCOTUS, in which a circuit judge ruled that some federal power grab was acceptable (I think it was agriculture related)... since the plant required air and water to grow, and through the water cycle and air cycle all water and air crossed state lines eventually, and as such he had to use an interstate product to grow his plants, and as such the commerce clause covered the situation. If you can reconcile that with the colonies playing hide-and-go-fuck-yourself with the King George over a small tax on tea, with "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" then get yourself fitted for a black robe, because you have a bright future ahead of you as a liberal appointed federal judge.
It's interesting you bring that up. For the last 30 years there has been a sort of "cold war" in this country, politically speaking. One has gone on since FDR created the great depression with his radical destructive policies, the other since Vietnam 1) Between the Feds and the States, especially over the Commerce Clause 2) Between the Executive and the Legislative branches In many ways the legislative branch has surrendered a lot of power to the executive (anyone who can find me a declaration of war since Vietnam wins a cookie), yet in other ways the legislative branch has issued massive restrictions of power against the executive, such as the War Power's Act, and the Special Prosecutor/Independent Counsul Act. However, as I mentioned, for the last 30 years there has been a 'Mexican Standoff', everyone is pointing the gun at each other, so no one pulls the trigger of taking the issues to court. Why? Because when you go before SCOTUS someone wins and someone loses, and whoever wins/loses on this matters will win/lose in a MASSIVE way. No one really wants to risk the massive loss, so no one makes the challenge. But now with ObamaCare being brought tothe courts a fascinating situation arises, in which both the Executive/Legislative cold war and the State/Federal cold war will come to a head. When the dust is settled, either states rights and personal liberty or radical federalism and the unitary executive will be absolutely decimated. The two approaches are incompatible under our Constitution.
Simply put, in my simplistic opinion, yes. The constitution gives the states control over what isn't expressed in the text. Since drug laws arent specified, the states should have control over that subject.
Another thing that i remember seeing somewhere is that no one ever voted to make any drugs illegal or for this war on drugs that has been going on for the past years. Is this true? or is it not necessary for the people to vote on something like that?
Technically no, however, the constitution is ultimately what gives the government sanction. I don't really see how anyone expected things to turn out differently.
It's pretty convenient you left out the "conservative" decisions that have come to the same conclusion. It has nothing to do with "liberal" but all to do with fascistic federalism. ie.: The southern pacific decisons, that ferry company decision between Jersey and New York. Gonzales V. Raich, and the list goes on and on. In fact it's just abouth the same as the "liberal" side. As for reconciling it with some sort of idealistic fairy tale version of the constitution, the framers, and their own debates, its not so hard. You do realize that there were constitutional debates in the very first term ever with the result of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses paving the way for expanded federal power, don't you? Bet ya didn't know George Washington was a "liberal activist" did ya? The framers even had the whiskey tax which incited a rebellion they ultimately crushed. Our country was never so free as they'd like to say it is.
i remember learning that liberals back then(washingtons days) were the conservatives of today and vice versa. correct me if im wrong
yeah to be honest how can you say its just a one sided thing? all politicians are fucked up man. no one is doing it right. or we would all vote for them.
I didn't mean the word in any actual political "sense." I just used it in the way that the "conservative" establishment (which isn't conservative by absolutely a single criterion) in the US uses the term to address the supreme court and such when they're in disagreement with them. But as far as your question with the meaning of liberal and conservative and what not, no. The liberals then would if anything resemble libertarians, and not "conservatives." The word liberal somehow during the era of massively expanded fascist intervention that was Reconstruction and following into the "Progressive era", morphed into a strange party "platform" which could be sold as anti-business(and therefore convolutedly pro-people) without any real ideological backgrounding. Then as I see it, the modern "conservative" movement was a knee-jerk "ideological" reciprocal or contrarian force. However, the order of that could be reversed as who's really the reciprocal, I really don't care. My point, though, is that they're designed for exact debate in which only the pre-fabricated talking points determined by whichever side are discussed with absoluelty no political recourse. Discussion of the Ideas about the "platforms" are strctly prohibitted from discussion in the MSM(yes including FOX).
Pretty much all Federal laws go against the Constitution. If it's not explicitly written in there, it's not legal. Yes, liberal originally meant in support of liberty. Today this philosophy is remembered as classical liberalism, and shared mostly by libertarians. They believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Today liberal means in support of equalization (or as they call it "progression), the exact opposite of liberty. They are often called neo or welfare liberals for this reason.