5 ms·
It seems to me that the Interstate Commerce Clause has pretty much sidestepped a large portion of the rest of the Constitution of the US.
by Mirioron 7y ago
It seems to me that the Interstate Commerce Clause has pretty much sidestepped a large portion of the rest of the Constitution of the US.
- dantheman 7y agoExactly, the federal government is supposed to have enumerated powers. That is why prohibition required an amendment, after the commerce clause we didn't need any amendments for the war on drugs.
- gamblor956 7y agoDrugs are made in one state. Sold in another. That is quite literally within the original Constitutional scope of the interstate commerce clause. No amendment needed... Prohibition required an amendment because at the time most alcohol was brewed/distilled/whatever locally and sold locally, so the amount of interstate alcohol commerce was limited and would not have survived constitutional review. (Now, most alcohol is made in a few states and sold nationally, so the interstate commerce clause would apply as a matter of original scope.)
- dantheman 7y agoMarijuana the #1 drug in the drug war can be and is grown everywhere.
- sokoloff 7y agoPretty much. Federally illegal drug (can't be sold interstate) being produced and consumed personally on someone's property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- tanzbaer 7y agoWhat utter bullshit.