quote:
That would be the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, proved by the Eighteenth and Twenty-first. It required an "activist" court to read the Interstate Commerce Clause so absurdly broad (See: Wickard v. Filburn, et seq) as to allow the federal prohibition of narcotics.

Point out where in the 9th and 10th amendment where it specifically says you have the Constitutional right to inject something that makes you a dreg on society.

Also, point out when it was specifically proven by the 18th and 21th Amendments.

You appear to be an attorney or studying Law so point out where the Court absurdly erred in its ruling that Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Federal prohibition of narcotics.

quote:
So tell me all about this "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, again?

So it's really that you just want to have the Constitutional right to deal and use drugs.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Joshjrn

Baton Rouge

Member since Dec 2008

27236 posts

Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:46 pm to DawgfaninCa

quote:
Point out where in the 9th and 10th amendment where it specifically says you have the Constitutional right to inject something that makes you a dreg on society.

Also, point out when it was specifically proven by the 18th and 21th Amendments.

You appear to be an attorney or studying Law so point out where the Court absurdly erred in its ruling that Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Federal prohibition of narcotics.

The language of the Ninth and Tenth amendments was interpreted since the founding to restrict the federal government from the prohibition of narcotics. That's why the federal prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. And if you don't see how Wickard, et seq was a massive departure from prior jurisprudence, I'm not sure what to tell you, beyond that if I'm going to give you a full blown constitutional history lesson, I'm going to start billing by the hour