• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Constitutional ? for OT

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Since you asked me (and I answered) a Constitutional question
I thought it would be good to ask you a former law enforcement officer a Constitutional question.

In 1919 the Federal Government needed to pass a Constitutional Ammendment (the 18th) to have the power to prohibit the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors"
in other words they needed a Constitutional ammendment to control this substance.
This was later repealed by the 21st ammendment in 1933.

So where does the Federal Government now get the power to control other substances, ( drugs for example) without a Constitutional ammendment?
Where were these "powers" for the Federal Government that did not exsist in 1919 found?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Since you asked me (and I answered) a Constitutional question
I thought it would be good to ask you a former law enforcement officer a Constitutional question.

In 1919 the Federal Government needed to pass a Constitutional Ammendment (the 18th) to have the power to prohibit the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors"
in other words they needed a Constitutional ammendment to control this substance.
This was later repealed by the 21st ammendment in 1933.

So where does the Federal Government now get the power to control other substances, ( drugs for example) without a Constitutional ammendment?
Where were these "powers" for the Federal Government that did not exsist in 1919 found?



Many civil libertarians and legal groups like the ACLU don't believe they are legal or Constitutional...

Those arguing in favor of the laws use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulateCommerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Prior to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, some drugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess those drugs- but never making up the stamps...

Historically some of the outlawing of drugs in the country came about because of international treaties we signed into..
I have long been a believer that the war on drugs is a war that we have lost- and that we could better handle the drug problem using the enforcement/prosecution/incarceration costs involved with illegal drugs to provide education and addiction treatment....Just like with the booze bootlegging problems of the 1920's- take away the illegality- and you take away the profitabillity that brings in the criminals...

But I've been told that with all the international treaties (that last for perpetuity) it can never happen...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Since you asked me (and I answered) a Constitutional question
I thought it would be good to ask you a former law enforcement officer a Constitutional question.

In 1919 the Federal Government needed to pass a Constitutional Ammendment (the 18th) to have the power to prohibit the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors"
in other words they needed a Constitutional ammendment to control this substance.
This was later repealed by the 21st ammendment in 1933.

So where does the Federal Government now get the power to control other substances, ( drugs for example) without a Constitutional ammendment?
Where were these "powers" for the Federal Government that did not exsist in 1919 found?



Many civil libertarians and legal groups like the ACLU don't believe they are legal or Constitutional...

Those arguing in favor of the laws use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulateCommerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Prior to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, some drugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess those drugs- but never making up the stamps...

Historically some of the outlawing of drugs in the country came about because of international treaties we signed into..
I have long been a believer that the war on drugs is a war that we have lost- and that we could better handle the drug problem using the enforcement/prosecution/incarceration costs involved with illegal drugs to provide education and addiction treatment....Just like with the booze bootlegging problems of the 1920's- take away the illegality- and you take away the profitabillity that brings in the criminals...

But I've been told that with all the international treaties (that last for perpetuity) it can never happen...

Well if that is true, and they had the authority, why didn't they just use the commerce clause in 1919?
So are you saying the Federal Government is/was usurping their authority with the "war on Drugs"?
Oltimer wrote:
Prior to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, some drugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess those drugs- but never making up the stamps...

So they were circumventing the Constitution and are still doing so today?
 

Steve

Well-known member
I've been told that with all the international treaties (that last for perpetuity) it can never happen

U.S. to back out of international court treaty

The United States will notify the United Nations that it has "no intention" of ratifying a treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and no longer considers itself to be bound by provisions of the pact, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.

President Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000,

USIA Threatens to Back Out of Treaty in Row on Export of Films

Regulation
USIA Threatens to Back Out of Treaty in Row on Export of Films
July 27, 1988|KIM MURPHY, Times Staff Writer

The U.S. Information Agency, faced with a series of court rulings striking down its attempts to regulate foreign distribution of documentary films, said this week that it will back out of an international film treaty if the agency's latest package of regulations is rejected on appeal.

The move, which could effectively limit the access of thousands of documentary film makers to foreign markets, followed three successive court rulings holding that USIA regulations for certifying U.S. films are unconstitutional.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-27/news/mn-6395_1_documentary-films

seems like some treaties "regulations" are unconstitutional and can be challenged?

and then we must back out of the treaty...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oooooooooooooooo

That must have stung!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

What does Steve know? The JP of Valley County knows it all with his VAST legal mind :wink: :wink: :wink:

He sat along side Obama studying constitutional law at Harvard or was it Yale, or USC or or or :D :D
YOu know he has a Masters, but just like OBama does not have the proof

: :roll: :roll:

EH?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Since you asked me (and I answered) a Constitutional question
I thought it would be good to ask you a former law enforcement officer a Constitutional question.

In 1919 the Federal Government needed to pass a Constitutional Ammendment (the 18th) to have the power to prohibit the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors"
in other words they needed a Constitutional ammendment to control this substance.
This was later repealed by the 21st ammendment in 1933.

So where does the Federal Government now get the power to control other substances, ( drugs for example) without a Constitutional ammendment?
Where were these "powers" for the Federal Government that did not exsist in 1919 found?



Many civil libertarians and legal groups like the ACLU don't believe they are legal or Constitutional...

Those arguing in favor of the laws use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulateCommerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Prior to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, some drugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess those drugs- but never making up the stamps...

Historically some of the outlawing of drugs in the country came about because of international treaties we signed into..
I have long been a believer that the war on drugs is a war that we have lost- and that we could better handle the drug problem using the enforcement/prosecution/incarceration costs involved with illegal drugs to provide education and addiction treatment....Just like with the booze bootlegging problems of the 1920's- take away the illegality- and you take away the profitabillity that brings in the criminals...

But I've been told that with all the international treaties (that last for perpetuity) it can never happen...

Well if that is true, and they had the authority, why didn't they just use the commerce clause in 1919?So are you saying the Federal Government is/was usurping their authority with the "war on Drugs"?
Oltimer wrote:
Prior to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, some drugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess those drugs- but never making up the stamps...

So they were circumventing the Constitution and are still doing so today?

I think you missed this also ot!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Many civil libertarians and legal groups like the ACLU don't believe they are legal orConstitutional... Those arguing in favor of thelaws use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution Prior to the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, somedrugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess thosedrugs- but never making up the stamps... Historically some of the outlawing ofdrugs in the country came about because of international treaties we signed into.. I have long been a believer that the war ondrugs is a war that we have lost- and that we could better handle thedrug problem using the enforcement/prosecution/incarceration costs involved with illegaldrugs to provide education and addiction treatment....Just like with the booze bootlegging problems of the 1920's- take away the illegality- and you take away the profitabillity that brings in the criminals... But I've been told that with all the international treaties (that last for perpetuity) it can never happen...
Well if that is true, and they had the authority, why didn't they just use the commerce clause in 1919?So are you saying the Federal Government is/was usurping their authority with the "war onDrugs"? Oltimer wrote:
Prior to the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, somedrugs were controlled by taxation- requiring folks to have tax stamps to possess thosedrugs- but never making up the stamps...
So they were circumventing the Constitution and are still doing so today?
I think you missed this also ot!

My understanding was that the Supreme Court had raisedConstitutionality questions on the Food andDrug Act of 1906- altho they did not rule directly on its unconstitutionality- they had made note in some rulings that they believed if challenged it would be found unconstitutional...

So the opponents of prohibition used that arguement to claim they needed a constitutional amendment thinking that the temperance movement would never be able to get enough support to pass a constitutional amendment.....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Lonecowboy said:
Well if that is true, and they had the authority, why didn't they just use the commerce clause in 1919?So are you saying the Federal Government is/was usurping their authority with the "war onDrugs"? Oltimer wrote: So they were circumventing the Constitution and are still doing so today?
I think you missed this also ot!

My understanding was that the Supreme Court had raisedConstitutionality questions on the Food andDrug Act of 1906- altho they did not rule directly on its unconstitutionality- they had made note in some rulings that they believed if challenged it would be found unconstitutional...

So the opponents of prohibition used that arguement to claim they needed a constitutional amendment thinking that the temperance movement would never be able to get enough support to pass a constitutional amendment.....

I guess I don't clearly understand your answer-

Oldtimer-Is the Federal Government usurping their power and circumventing the Constitution with the war on drugs?? yes or no
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
I think you missed this also ot!
My understanding was that the Supreme Court had raisedConstitutionality questions on the Food andDrug Act of 1906- altho they did not rule directly on its unconstitutionality- they had made note in some rulings that they believed if challenged it would be found unconstitutional... So the opponents of prohibition used that arguement to claim they needed a constitutional amendment thinking that the temperance movement would never be able to get enough support to pass a constitutional amendment.....
I guess I don't clearly understand your answer- Oldtimer-Is the Federal Government usurping their power and circumventing the Constitution with the war ondrugs?? yes or no

My personal opinion is that the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of1970 was - just like the later PatriotAct- both put thru in times of fear and hysteria in the country with a paranoid President promoting it as the only way to save the country- and was unconstitutional....
Same as I question the authority to send US troops and Federal Law Enforcement and funds into foreign countries to battle drug cartels...

Do I believe it will be overturned- No, because in 40 years it has been able to develop precedents in court rulings in its favor and during this time all three of the branchs of government- administrative, legislative, and judicial have pretty well broadened the definition of-- and accepted the stance that the commerce clause give them access/justification to most any like issue in the country...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote:

My personal opinion is that the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of1970 was - just like the later PatriotAct- both put thru in times of fear and hysteria in the country with a paranoid President promoting it as the only way to save the country- and was unconstitutional....
Same as I question the authority to send US troops and Federal Law Enforcement and funds into foreign countries to battle drug cartels...

Do I believe it will be overturned- No, because in 40 years it has been able to develop precedents in court rulings in its favor and during this time all three of the branchs of government- administrative, legislative, and judicial have pretty well broadened the definition of-- and accepted the stance that the commerce clause give them access/justification to most any like issue in the country...

So let me see if I have this straight-
It is un Constitutional, but because of 40 years of appointed Judges setting presidence, legislating from the bench, all three branches of government now are able circumvent our Constitution.
And this is acomplished by people that get their authority from the Constitution and swear an oath to defend it.
Do I have that about right OT?
And you are OK with this?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer wrote:

My personal opinion is that the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of1970 was - just like the later PatriotAct- both put thru in times of fear and hysteria in the country with a paranoid President promoting it as the only way to save the country- and was unconstitutional....
Same as I question the authority to send US troops and Federal Law Enforcement and funds into foreign countries to battle drug cartels...

Do I believe it will be overturned- No, because in 40 years it has been able to develop precedents in court rulings in its favor and during this time all three of the branchs of government- administrative, legislative, and judicial have pretty well broadened the definition of-- and accepted the stance that the commerce clause give them access/justification to most any like issue in the country...

So let me see if I have this straight-
It is un Constitutional, but because of 40 years of appointed Judges setting presidence, legislating from the bench, all three branches of government now are able circumvent our Constitution.
And this is acomplished by people that get their authority from the Constitution and swear an oath to defend it.
Do I have that about right OT?
And you are OK with this?

Just because I believe at the time it was passed it was unconstitutional doesn't necessarily make it so now..

40 years of rulings by folks wearing robes say its constitutional- which then makes it the Constitutional interpretation you have to follow....Until overturned by the SCOTUS it will continue to be the law of the land- the same as GW's unconstitutional (imho) Patriot Act......
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer wrote:

My personal opinion is that the ComprehensiveDrug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of1970 was - just like the later PatriotAct- both put thru in times of fear and hysteria in the country with a paranoid President promoting it as the only way to save the country- and was unconstitutional....
Same as I question the authority to send US troops and Federal Law Enforcement and funds into foreign countries to battle drug cartels...

Do I believe it will be overturned- No, because in 40 years it has been able to develop precedents in court rulings in its favor and during this time all three of the branchs of government- administrative, legislative, and judicial have pretty well broadened the definition of-- and accepted the stance that the commerce clause give them access/justification to most any like issue in the country...

So let me see if I have this straight-
It is un Constitutional, but because of 40 years of appointed Judges setting presidence, legislating from the bench, all three branches of government now are able circumvent our Constitution.
And this is acomplished by people that get their authority from the Constitution and swear an oath to defend it.
Do I have that about right OT?
And you are OK with this?

Just because I believe at the time it was passed it was unconstitutional doesn't necessarily make it so now..

40 years of rulings by folks wearing robes say its constitutional- which then makes it the Constitutional interpretation you have to follow....Until overturned by the SCOTUS it will continue to be the law of the land- the same as GW's unconstitutional (imho) Patriot Act......

The Constitution never changed- so if it was unconstitutional then it still is!
We are a nation ruled by law not men- so 40 years worth of rulings make no difference. This is all done by people who took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution- the very document they get their authority from.
If they will circumvent the Constitution then they no longer have any Constitutional authority.
"We the People are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts,
Not the overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

OT- Thank You for answering my question to the best of your ability.
Now, what are you going to do to protect and defend our Constitution that you took a solem oath to do?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
One more point-
How many people are imprisioned unlawfullly because a few judges and politicians have decided to thumb thier noses at our constitution and their oath of office! They are undermining the very document that gave them that power.
That Sir is TYRANNY!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
One more point-
How many people are imprisioned unlawfullly because a few judges and politicians have decided to thumb thier noses at our constitution and their oath of office! They are undermining the very document that gave them that power.
That Sir is TYRANNY!

And a country without a rule of law is an anarchy...!!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
One more point-
How many people are imprisioned unlawfullly because a few judges and politicians have decided to thumb thier noses at our constitution and their oath of office! They are undermining the very document that gave them that power.
That Sir is TYRANNY!

And a country without a rule of law is an anarchy...!!

But to break laws is illegal!!!!
Is that not correct,???
 
Top