"A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care."

In a sharp piece for National Review Online, the Cato Institute's David Rittgers reminds conservatives that the war on drugs is a mirror image of ObamaCare's overreaching and abusive federal power:

Many conservatives have long argued that the federal government is broadly empowered to prosecute the drug war under Congress's authority over interstate commerce. In the name of the drug war, they have been willing to allow federal law-enforcement officers to prosecute seriously ill patients who use medical marijuana in compliance with their states' laws.

Many of those same conservatives are now finding that the terrible, swift sword of expansive federal power that they endorsed in the name of drug prohibition has now been turned on them in the form of Obamacare's individual mandate….

A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care. The Commerce Clause is a double-edged sword: Conservatives cannot wield it in the drug war without making it a useful tool for advancing progressive visions of federal power.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Pro Libertate]

That's right--it's about limited government with specific, enumerated powers all of the time.

[JW]

Except for the Dutch.

[heller]

Well that goes without saying.

[Words of Advice]

Just remember kids, words written by Tony and MNG are words that if you read you will deny yourself reading of someone much more interesting or better informed.

If you like fiction, here is a very savvy and forgotten writer:

Clark Ashton Smith

Horror, necrophilia, opium dreams. What is there not to love?
http://www.eldritchdark.com

Look away, there is nothing to be gained from venturing further down this page, but if you do so, remember, you were warned.

[Johnny Clamboat]

You have done a valuable public service good sir.

[Jesus H.]

Or, what goes around comes around.
Also acceptable: It sucks when the chickens come home to roost.

[Tony]

I see plenty of "principle" and coherence between conservatives' views on the drug war and Obamacare: they're for whatever hurts poor people more.

[Pro Libertate]

As opposed to the left's undying enmity towards the War on Drugs? Is that one of those things if you squint funny you see a different image?

[Tony]

I'm pretty sure liberals are strongly in favor of liberalizing drug policy.

[turtle]

This might be news to Obama's DEA

[Tony]

I thought we were talking about "the left," not the justice department.

[John]

So Eric Holder is not a member of the "Left"? That will certainly be news to him.

[Tony]

I don't know. Isn't it the job of the justice department to enforce US laws rather than enact an ideological agenda?

Being a Bushie perhaps you're confused on that point.

[John]

The AG can set the priorities and can gets to say what the federal government position on laws are. There is nothing stopping Holder from putting drug enforcement to the bottom of the priority list and saying that state medical marijuana laws don't conflict with federal laws.

[Tony]

John, can I eat your asshole? Would your wife mind? She can watch. But don't let her think she can tongue my shithole. That's just for you.

[Tony]

I'm also sticking to my "you're a Bushie" tactic, even if the people I'm arguing with didn't vote for Bush.

[heller]

Hey, "you're a Bushie" is really the only thing Tony has left. Can't we at least let him keep that in place of his long-lost dignity?

[Tony]

heller, John is as much of a partisan as I am. I'm not calling you all Bushies, just John.

[John]

How am I just as bad as you when I am admitting that conservatives are terrible on this issue to? Being a partisan means you won't admit faults in your own side.

[Tony]

John,

That's not how I define partisan. I consider myself a partisan, but I find plenty of fault with the Democratic party. Your partisanship is one of the things I respect you for, John. I believe in picking sides. And I also believe in ridiculing libertarians for preferring circle jerk sessions to doing so.

[heller]

Your partisanship is one of the things I respect you for, John. I believe in picking sides. And I also believe in ridiculing libertarians for preferring circle jerk sessions to doing so.

You think being a cheerleader for a team with arbitrary positions is superior to being loyal to a set of coherent ideas? Please. You're projecting your partisan silliness onto people who actually take the time to think instead of following the ridiculous whims of a group. Get over yourself, partisan hack.

[Tony]

You think being a cheerleader for a team with arbitrary positions is superior to being loyal to a set of coherent ideas?

No, I'm saying they're not incompatible. The positions are rarely arbitrary enough that you can't choose between the two sides. And you can't get any of your principles enacted into policy without choosing one of the two sides and influencing it.

[heller]

Tony, you're living in a fantasy if you think you or any other non-political-elite has the power to influence partisan hack leaders. You think you're driving the bus? No Tony, they're taking you for a ride. NTTAWWT.

[heller]

Tony, you're living in a fantasy if you think you or any other non-political-elite has the power to influence partisan hack leaders. You think you're driving the bus? No Tony, they're taking you for a ride. NTTAWWT.

[heller]

Tony, you really need to read what John just wrote at least ten times:

How am I just as bad as you when I am admitting that conservatives are terrible on this issue to? Being a partisan means you won't admit faults in your own side.

[The Gobbler]

"Isn't it the job of the justice department to enforce US laws"

Not if the crime's against whitey.

[JohnD]

Apparently that doesn't apply to Black thugs that violate election laws... fool.

[anoneemouse]

The left is very much in favor of the FDA and similar government enterprises which are part and parcel to the drug war

[John]

It will also be news to the majority of voters and vast majority of newspaper editorial writers in California, America's most liberal state.

[Tony]

So who were the ones who voted for the proposition? Conservatives?

[John]

Some of them were. And I am sure some of them were Libertarians. But the vast majority of Californians are self described liberals. Yet, California has awful drug laws and tons of people in prison over them. And a majority of the state wouldn't support even legalizing marijuana.

Further, how much of the D's campaing money comes from public employee unions that includes prison guards and cops who have a vested interest in the drug war continuing? A lot. The liberal record on drugs is terrible. As bad as the conservative record on it.

[Tony]

I'm going to dance around this and blame everyone on the right-of-center side for all our ills, which is my answer for every argument.

Obviously, the "liberals" you reference are secretly Republicans pretending to be liberals.

[Tony]

But the vast majority of Californians are self described liberals.

Citation? California is not composed solely of San Francisco, you know.

Why don't you blather less and look up information more? Guess who supported the measure in California? Labor unions and, dum dum dum, George Soros.

[John]

Yeah. the majority of Californians are conservatives. That would explain why the state government is so conservative.

Jesus Tony, you are reduced to arguing that California is not a liberal state. I think this may be a new low for you.

[Tony]

From PPIC, likely voters in California identify themselves as:

31% liberal
29% moderate
40% conservative

[John]

That is how they "identify themselves". It doesn't say anything about what those terms actually mean to the people using them. I am quite sure Nancy Pelosi would call herself a moderate pragmatist if you asked her. But that isn't quite how the rest of the world would view her. The proof of the views of Californians is in their government.

[Tony]

John, try visiting California someday. When you're not immediately gay raped by a dreadlocked pot smoking hippie, perhaps you'll attain a more balanced opinion of the state.

And Speaker Pelosi defines herself as a liberal. Your refutation of the PPIC poll fails.

[John]

Tony half of my family is from California. I have spent more than a fair amount of time there. I am quite familiar with it. And yes, there really are a ton of liberals there. They elected Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman for God sakes.

[Tony]

I'm not saying Cali isn't more liberal than most states, just that the failure of Prop. 19 is evidence itself that it's not "overwhelmingly" or majority liberal. Liberals, pretty much by definition, support liberalizing drug laws. It wasn't liberals voting against Prop. 19.

[JohnD]

I used to travel to differant parts of CA for a couple of days almost every week for two years. The entire state seemed pretty liberal to me.
Besides Tony, Your definition of liberal probably differs from most peoples on this site.

[MNG]

"That is how they "identify themselves". It doesn't say anything about what those terms actually mean to the people using them."

Now Tulpa et al take note: THIS is what the "No True Scotsman" thing is all about...

[Mr. FIFY]

Well, Tony, you're right for once... Soros does, indeed, help fight the war on drugs.

Which is his ONLY redeeming quality.

[Pro Libertate]

Didn't those liberal people control the federal government for a couple of years recently? Darn those conservatives and their mind-control rays!

[Tony]

No, they didn't. Given the makeup of Congress over the last two years and particularly the structure of the senate, at best it could be said the government has been under the control of moderate Democrats, not liberals.

[Joe M]

Look how well those liberals did in California, when they legalized marijuana.

[Pro Libertate]

Those aren't real liberals, either.

You know, Obama could simply waive his hand and end the WoD. Or dramatically reduce it. Or reduce it a little bit. Or do anything. At all.

[Tony]

Obama could unilaterally stop enforcing federal drug law? Can he do that with any law?

[Pro Libertate]

What does the law require him to do? A whole lot less than he's doing. The administration has discretion on enforcement of most laws and also controls to a great extent the allocation of its resources.

He's also got very broad powers as commander-in-chief as far as the military's role in the WoD.

Also, and this is the kicker, the president can easily take the position that elements of the WoD are unconstitutional, immoral, racist, etc. And he'd be right.

[Oso Politico]

Does he claim to be able to assasinate (not personally, of course) anybody he deems undesireable?

[Pro Libertate]

Only with airborne drones.

[Mr. FIFY]

"Obama could unilaterally stop enforcing federal drug law? Can he do that with any law?"

He could decide to let states choose their own drug policy, but that would open the gates to letting them choose their own health-care policy, and that would fuck up his Obamacare scheme.

Catch-22s. Gotta love 'em.

[JW]

Liberals are the extreme left. Got it.

[Tony]

Maybe that's how you'd characterize them, but if you want an ally on the drug war issue that's where you're gonna have to go.

[Pro Libertate]

Statists aren't our allies, period.

[Tony]

Statists aren't our allies, period.

Can't you guys be the least bit pragmatic? You don't have to ally yourselves with liberals on every issue, but if you want actual policy changes instead of sitting around jerking off to pure unadulterated principle, you might see more things get done.

[Pro Libertate]

Oh, we've seen plenty get done. Thanks, but no thanks.

And I am a pragmatist. People who refuse to accept the dangers of an unlimited state cannot be allies of libertarians. Not in any general way. Crap, the stupid Republicans at least occasionally mutter that government should have limits.

[Tony]

People who refuse to accept the dangers of an unlimited state cannot be allies of libertarians.

That makes sense. Who are these people again?

[The Mirror]

Here you are, Tony... a "people who refuse to accept the dangers of an unlimited state".

Comb your hair while you're at it.

[Tony]

No that's what we call a straw man. Nobody I know, and certainly not I, refuse to accept the dangers of an unlimited state.

That's just what you idiots have to believe in order to sustain your Limbaughian hatred of liberals.

[Tony]

I'm also going to use "Limbaughian" in my non-answer answers, because it's obvious to me that if one isn't just like me, they're a right-winger. Period.

[Mr. FIFY]

"Statists" also includes conservatives, Tony.

[Pro Libertate]

Exactly.

[Oso Politico]

Amen, Bro...

[JohnD]

moderate Democrats? ROFLMAO!!!!
What a macaroon.

[JW]

I'm pretty sure they aren't.

They keep voting for people who aren't, so I can only judge them by their actions.

[Joe M]

Liberals, maybe, Democrats, no.

[Rock Action]

Yes, prohibition with endless treatment and state oversight. Sounds awesome.

[Robert]

There's no need to speculate about what "liberals", i.e. social democrats, would do in terms of narcotics policy given their head. Just survey Europe.

There is great variation between the countries, of course, but broadly speaking, Europe still has a drug war, just a kinder, gentler version of it. Penalties are lower, but then again penalties for all crime are generally less in Europe.

You see, everything in Europe is more pragmatic than in the Americas. Things are not discussed in terms of clash of principles, but of conflict of desires, and the working out of compromises rather than the attempt to arrive at solutions.

[SugarFree]

And Tony once again mumbles past the existence of Medicaid.

[Pro Libertate]

Medicaid? What is that, some sort of new Android app?

[Tony]

Which Obamacare expanded... I don't get how you guys base your policy positions on immutable principles, and then justify them by referring to existing programs that, according to your immutable principles, shouldn't exist.

[MNG]

+100

[SugarFree]

Don't enable the dipshit, please.

My point is that the poor are already covered by Medicaid. Which means ObamaCare is, by definition, for the not-poor. Argue that the expansion of Medicaid is a good thing, but don't pretend that it is the only way the poor are going to get any sort of medical coverage. It's dishonest, which is what we've all come to expect from Tony.

[Tony]

Fine, let me expand. Conservatives consistently oppose liberal policies, including universal healthcare and an end to the WoD. The only people who really give a crap about the "size of government" nonsense distraction are you guys.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

Fine, let me expand. Conservatives consistently oppose liberal policies, including universal healthcare and an end to the WoD. The only people who really give a crap about the "size of government" nonsense distraction are you guys.

The end of the WonD is not a liberal policy.

[Tony]

OM that's exactly what it is. What is with you guys today? What is it, a conservative policy? Liberalizing drug laws is something liberals are in favor of. Pretty much universally, these days.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

OM that's exactly what it is. What is with you guys today? What is it, a conservative policy?

No, it's a moral policy, as it is immoral to persecute people for what they put in their bodies. Calling it "liberal" [i.e. socialist] is meaningless.

Liberalizing drug laws is something liberals are in favor of. Pretty much universally, these days.

Not really. If they were, really, they would have voted for Prop 19 in California. They [liberals, or Statist fucks] have voted for more insanely anti-freedom stuff so why would they start doing an about-face with drug legalization?

[MNG]

Again, no proof that liberals comprise a majority of Californian voters.

And another case of someone here, other than me and Tony btw, not taking what self-identified liberals say they want because they would have to actually agree with the dreaded libeals here, but rather defining what liberals are for them. No true scotsman indeed.

[nekoxgirl]

Liberals may support the end of the WoDs but unfortunately, liberals tend to vote for Democrats who do not. I'm unaware of any elected Democrat that favors the end of the WoDs, but I can name a Republican or two.

It seems to me that if liberals actually wanted to end the WoDs they should have voted for John Dennis not Nancy Pelosi. The fact that they did not tells me liberals aren't really serious about the WoD and that they will continue to trade their own individual freedom for big government social programs.

[MNG]

"I'm unaware of any elected Democrat that favors the end of the WoDs, but I can name a Republican or two."

Then you are misinformed. Of Cali's Congressional delegation only four supported prop 19, they were Democrats.

"Liberals may support the end of the WoDs but unfortunately, liberals tend to vote for Democrats who do not."

Now I agree with this, this is correct.

[nekoxgirl]

Well it's nice to know that a few Democrats in the House support legalization.

[Tony, clarified]

The bigger the government, the better off we'll be. Eventually, there will be nothing BUT government, and I'm fine with that. And everyone should agree.

[FreeInMinnesota]

Univeral Healthcare impedes our ability to end the WoD, instead enabling a war on food as well. Once they are in charge of our healthcare, the only logical thing for them to do is control what we put into our bodies even more. That isn't some Orwellian hyperbole, that is what is happening today.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

I see plenty of "principle" and coherence between conservatives' views on the drug war and Obamacare: they're for whatever hurts poor people more.

Obamacare helps poor people?

[MNG]

Obamacare has many faults, but were I poor I think I would prefer it over the status quo. It would beat no insurance I guess.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Obamacare has many faults, but were I poor I think I would prefer it over the status quo. It would beat no insurance I guess.

Does it? Because one of the arguments wielded around for Obamacare was the supposedly rising cost of services because people were being attended for their ailments in hospitals without being charged a penny. That's supposed to be the "status quo." Now you're required to buy insurance - how is that supposed to be better than the current status quo where you can get treatment for free?

Make up your mind.

[jacob]

people were being attended for their ailments in hospitals without being charged a penny.

On what planet does this occur? Hospitals can and do go after self-pay patients, either through creditors, arbitration, or even civil litigation.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Jacob,

I said that that was the argument, not that it is universally true. Read the posts before shooting.

[John]

could Mr Citation please, give a citation showing where a single poor person is going to get insurance based on Obamacare? We have certainly seen them losing insurance a lot lately via McDonalds and such. But I haven't seen anything showing them getting it.

[JW]

Obamacare has many faults, but were I poor I think I would prefer it over the status quo. It would beat no insurance I guess.

How about we reform the private insurance market so it's an actual, functioning market, instead of the central committee pretzel logic clusterfuck that it is, and make Medicare a means tested voucher program?

Nah, crazy talk.

[Pro Libertate]

No, because increased government involvement this time will work. All those other times that the states and feds have added regulations or acted to limit the market don't count.

[JW]

Mulligan regulations. It's how the State keeps its golf score so low.

[Pro Libertate]

I'd be fine with that if they gave us private folk a mulligan or two as well.

[nekoxgirl]

Well some states are considering ending Medicaid now because Obama-care is going to require the states to come up with additional revenue at a time when they are already stuggling with their budgets. How will the poor be helped if states completely abandon Medicaid?

[Jeffersonian]

Only poor people take drugs? Are you sure about that, Tony?

And Obama/Holder will never, ever back away from enforcing federal law against citizens of states where drugs have been legalized. That might get people thinking about federalism, and that's the last thing Emperor Barack wants.

[Tony]

No, everyone takes drugs. Poor people are just the ones that usually get thrown in jail for it.

[John]

Very true Tony.

[John]

If the limits of the commerce clause apply to wheat and chickens it applies to drugs. The Federal government can ban the import of drugs from other countries since they own customs law. They can make it illegal to transport it across state lines since they own interstate commerce. The states can make the stuff outright illegal since they own general police power.

But the federal government cannot under a proper reading of the Constitution regulate the production, sale or consumption of drugs taking place within one state. And my fellow conservatives don't like that because they think the evil weed is somehow different, tough shit. Sometimes life is like that. The Constitution can't mean one thing on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and something else the other three days of the week.

[Rip van Winkle]

There are only six days in a week?
How long have I been asleep?

[capitol l]

Dude, the constitution rests on Sunday. Always has, always will.

[pancakes]

There is a consensus among American "elites" on Social Security. Most CEOs, pundits, and elected officials favor cutting and / or privatizing it, claiming that doing so will reduce the deficit. That claim is a lie, since Social Security is fully funded through 2037, pays for itself 100%, and doesn't add one dime to the deficit.

We can't expect these CEOs, Republicans, pundits and Blue Dogs to stop propagating their lies about Social Security. Instead, if we are going to stop this alliance of elites from cutting Social Security, the first thing we must do is promise ourselves we won't ever buy into their lies.

[turtle]

Paul Krugman reads and posts on H&R?

[Ben]

Is this satire or a attempted threadjack?

[SugarFree]

It's "waffles" evil twin.

[waffles]

Winner!

I copied and pasted that gem from the DailyKos email action list that someone rudely signed me up for. Isn't it just darling?

[pancakes]

go away

[Pro Libertate]

Go 'way, bakin'.

[Drax the Destroyer]

Ahh Idiocracy...one day your wisdom will be recognized.

[Jeffersonian]

That claim is a lie, since Social Security is fully funded through 2037, pays for itself 100%, and doesn't add one dime to the deficit.

That's hilarious, given that it's already added to an annual deficit and will certainly add to the debt once those Double Secret Probation Bonds get sold to pay for Granny's Alpo.

[nekoxgirl]

Sad but the entire left really buys that bulls**t. I've tried to explain what Treasury Bills are but I'm always met with blank stares followed by more gibberish about how greedy rich people ate all the money.

[JohnD]

I'll have some of what Pancakes is smoking... oh wait... I don't do drugs (unless you count asprin and sinus medicine).

Anyway, he's smoking some pretty strong stuff if he beleives what he just posted.

[JW]

Let me speak for RC.

Me today. You tomorrow.

[Ragin Cajun]

That was the one I was thinking of.

[R C Dean]

Many thanks.

[TrickyVic]

""The Constitution can't mean one thing on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and something else the other three days of the week.""

True, but if you replace the days with political affiliation, it's more accurate. What how little the Rs complain about Obamacare when it becomes federalized Romneycare.

[John]

"What how little the Rs complain about Obamacare when it becomes federalized Romneycare."

I don't know what planet you live on but many Republicans hate Romney's guts for Romneycare. And he is running away for it as a "youthful indiscretion" and "an experiment" now that he is trying to run for President again.

[MNG]

"but many Republicans hate Romney's guts for Romneycare."

By "many" do you mean "a minority?"

http://politics.usnews.com/new.....picks.html

[John]

"Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, garnered support from 19 percent of those surveyed,"

19 percent support him. That means 81% don't support him and support other people. Last I looked 81% was a majority and a sizable one at that.

I guess if you understood math, you wouldn't be a liberal.

[MNG]

He was still the largest vote getter. That hardly makes him a figure hated by "Republicans." In fact it makes him the most supported GOPer out there.

[Jeffersonian]

In this case, "most supported" == "least hated"

[John]

I said "but many Republicans hate Romney's guts for Romneycare."

I did even say "most". I said many. And many do. And I don't see how him getting 19% of the vote disproves that. Also, he has pretty walked away from Romneycare and is trying to pretend it didn't happen. It is not like he is running on it like he did in 2008.

[TrickyVic]

""It is not like he is running on it like he did in 2008.

He was the top pick on that list.

Part of his campaign will be fixing Obamacare based on his experience with Romneycare. Assuming healthcare is still an issue.

[John]

"Part of his campaign will be fixing Obamacare based on his experience with Romneycare."

For the fifth time 81% of the people in the survey are not voting for the guy. Why is that so hard for you to get?

[TrickyVic]

""I said "but many Republicans hate Romney's guts for Romneycare."""

Yeah, they hate it so much that he's on the top of that list.

And when you are on the top of the list, "most" is a valid term.

[John]

"And when you are on the top of the list, "most" is a valid term."

Last I looked, most meant a majority or at least close. When you get 19% you can't say "most Republicans". 81% of Republicans are not supporting that guy. Yet, you say "most Republicans support him". That is Joe Boyle level disingeniousness.

[Zeb]

He was the largest vote getter, but the other 81% may well have preferred to vote for a dead rat than Romney. That is how I would have felt about it anyway (If I were a republican).

[Pro Libertate]

Tell me more about this dead rat. His domestic policy intrigues me.

[MNG]

You're not going to like it. He wants to fund free cheese programs and programs to study the reversibility of rat death, all under the Tax and Spend Clause...

[Pro Libertate]

You're positing a dead rat that has opinions? You realize he's (1) a rat and (2) dead?

[MNG]

This is not your ordinary dead rat Pro. We're talking Secret of Nimh quality rat here.

[Pro Libertate]

Very well, I waive my objections.

[waffles]

oh, by dead rat I thought you meant Nixon was back.

[MJ]

Well, if we're talking about the Death of Rats then he is very opinated and quite animated. Technically though, he's not really a rat at all.

[TrickyVic]

""I don't know what planet you live on but many Republicans hate Romney's guts for Romneycare.""

Are you kidding? I have to ask what planet are you on? Didn't this guy come in third place in the 2008 primary?

He's the #2 pick on this poll for 2012.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124.....rt-12.aspx

[John]

"Didn't this guy come in third place in the 2008 primary?"

So what? He didn't even get a decent plurality of votes. How does that disprove that "many Republicans hate his guts". And you cite the same poll that MNG does. So what 19% like him. That means 81% don't. You prove my point. And if Republicans would just love their own Obamacare, why is Romeny running away from Romenycare? Shouldn't he be running on it?

[TrickyVic]

""So what 19% like him."""

In that poll, more liked him than the others. That means "most" do like him.

[John]

"That means "most" do like him"

No it doesn't. At best it means of the other candidates in the poll "THE MOST" like him. Most without the "THE" means a majority. No matter how you spin it, 19% is still 19%. Because the other 81% is split among other candidates doesn't mean that a lot of Republicans don't hate Romney's guts.

[TrickyVic]

Say I give in. Then it would be true that most republicans didn't like anyone in the poll.

[TrickyVic]

And come election day, only one of the those names will be on the R ballot. According to that poll, Romney would be the man. If that becomes true, he will receive more than 19% of the R's votes.

[nekoxgirl]

I thought Mitt Romney is considered the front-runner for the GOP in 2012. I'm hoping the MSM is wrong but I'm afraid Republicans will nominate him anyway, just because the media tells them "he's the only one that can win."

[Robert]

So it's "Poochie", right?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it does mean one thing. To a good little statist, the Constitution of the United States literally means "whatever the hell I want it to mean, whenever I want it to mean it, for how ever long I want it to mean it."

Any resulting inconsistencies or negative outcomes can be explained away with a few magic words: "deregulation", "partisanship", "foreign money", "failure to properly explain", "didn't go far enough", "my predecessor", "not enough funding", "right people weren't in charge", "racism", "sexism", "right wingers", "libertarians".

I can't read too much of the Statist Grimoire at a time or it will eat my soul.

[Jerry]

So how have courts treated the constitutionality of drug laws in the past?

[Drax the Destroyer]

The courts/judges generally got on their knees and sucked the Chlamydia-infused semen from their masters who instituted the drug laws (and appointed them to cushy high-paying legal jobs for life).

[MNG]

How about, you know, some actual scientific polling data on the question of whether liberals or conservatives are better on the legalization question?

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t200212009.pdf

Liberals 78% for legalization, conservatives 72% opposed.

Ok, you guys can go on now about how Eric Holder and some editorial boards define the left...

[JW]

Whatever. When they stop voting for thugs, over and over, who are "tough on crime" or, you know, make legalization a plank of the Democratic Party, call me.

[John]

And most conservatives want a smaller government in polls to. But so what? They are not willing to hold their elected officials accountable for contrary views. So while they support it, they must not think it is very important.

So what if liberals tell a pollster they support ending prohibition when they are still willing to vote for politicians who act completely contrary to that position? If they don't consider it import enough to vote on, how are they any better than those who support prohibition?

[MNG]

I think part of the confusion here is that self-described liberals do not equal 50% of the public, not even close. So Democratic candidates, who liberals prefer, have to win votes from non-liberals, who have more conservative views on drugs. So these candidates, mindful that conservatives will attack them for being the party of "acid" (remember that?) or for being soft on drugs, try not to be seen as being soft on drugs. And liberals vote for them as the lesser of two evils.

But certainly liberals support less drug oppression just like conservatives are more likely to support cuts in (nonmilitary or law enforcement) spending. It's just that both have trouble getting the parties they are friendly towards to do both...

[John]

I am not convinced of that. And to the extent they do it is for the wrong reasons. They support ending drug prohibition because they think it harms minorities not because they think people should be free to do what they like. If they thought that, they wouldn't be in love with tobacco and trans fat bans.

Their position is really more incoherent than anything else. How can be for legalizing marijuana but think the government banning Happy Meals is a good idea?

[MNG]

No, most liberals, if you talk to them, will tell you people should be allowed to do pot because they should be able to do what they want with their bodies. Really, they will. I realize this seems to conflict with a lot of their other views. But upon closer inspection you can see some distinguishing features (the happy meal thing is for TEH CHILDREN; tobacco restrictions are for public accomodations, etc). These features may not pan out logically, but having stances that might ultimately be in conflict is common among a host of ideologies...

Either way the important thing imo is that this is an area liberals and libertarians can make common cause over, and maybe get something done about it.

[Robert]

It's because marijuana isn't produced (yet) by a big legal business. I think their ideal would be legal possession, legal production for personal use, but penalties for commerce in it just enough to discourage any large single business from getting into it. And franchising it to small businesses (like McDonald's) doesn't get them off the hook.

[MNG]

Self identified liberals make up only about 20% of the population, so they are'nt in a position to change much. 36% call themselves moderates and 40% conservative. If anyone could put together a coalition to end drugs, it could be the latter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123.....group.aspx

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

How about, you know, some actual scientific polling data on the question of whether liberals or conservatives are better on the legalization question?

Whose better on tobacco use? It's not a lefty fascist vs righty fascist thing, but a "freedom-lovers vs statist fucks" thing, MNG.

[MNG]

"Whose better on tobacco use?"

Time to change the goal posts!

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Time to change the goal posts!

Time to sleaze out of a problem here!

Mind you, the same people who would readily ban toys in Happy Meals say they're for legalization of drugs. Sure they are.

[MNG]

The goal posts are now in the parking lot...

[Lefty's kicker]

don't worry, MNG, I can hit it from anywhere.

[Old Mexican]

And he slithers his way out! Yay for MNG!

Please clean up your slime before leaving... it's yucky.

[MNG]

There's no slithering going on, just topic moving on your part because there's such solid evidence that liberals are better than conservatives on the WOD. On tobacco and Happy Meals they strike me as worse. Of course, I wasn't talking about that.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

There's no slithering going on, just topic moving on your part because there's such solid evidence that liberals are better than conservatives on the WOD. On tobacco and Happy Meals they strike me as worse. Of course, I wasn't talking about that.

And like I indicated, it is irrelevant as both so-called Conservatives and Liberals are quick to use the power of government to impose their cherished beliefs, by construing the so-called "elastic clauses" of the Constitution as they see fit. Just saying that these Statist fucks are better than those Statist fucks on that or that issue is meaningless. You *know* that.

[heller]

Last I checked, the topic of this post was limits on federal power. Way to shrink the goal posts.

[MNG]

The discussion I'm having here originated with my comment on the relative support for the WOD among liberals and conservatives heller. How helpful is it in answering this question to point to liberals asinine views on Happy Meals?

[heller]

And the nicotine in tobacco isn't a drug? You referred to moving the goal posts when tobacco was mentioned, as if that has nothing to do with liberal prohibitinism .

[Pro Libertate]

Oh, not you, too. The left has had ample opportunity to DO ANYTHING AT ALL to rein in the WoD. Yet they do nothing. Not at the federal level, not at the state level, not anywhere. We've seen tiny moves towards decriminalization, but that's hardly thanks to the left. That's just from a general feeling that some drugs don't require tanks and nuclear weapons to fight against.

[MNG]

Again, I don't know of many places where "the left" is in power. You're confusing them with Democrats.

[heller]

So democrats are conservatives too? Gosh liberals must be an even smaller group than libertarians by MNG and Tony's estimations...

[MNG]

Well, yes, a fair amount of Democrats are pretty conservative. At least they are far more to the right than self-identified "liberals." And they have to appeal to people to the right of liberals to win nearly any election.

[heller]

So liberals are like a magical race of invisible elves, and all the mistakes made by Democrats were the wrong kind of Democrats, the ones who aren't magical elves? Got it.

[Pro Libertate]

It does make one wonder why any of us should vote for any Democrats, since they're getting thrown under the bus with such force.

[Tony]

Considering the "liberals" who apparently have been controlling the government got a healthcare plan only a Republican could love (a decade ago), what makes you think they had the votes to enact real drug reform?

What point are you trying to make exactly? That conservatives are better than liberals on the WoD?

[Pro Libertate]

Spin it all you want, no one in this administration or Congress took a single step to fight against the WoD. Not a single step. How did the GOP minority do that again? Their magical drug warrior wand?

[MNG]

Obama's coalition has as many, if not more, non-leftists in it than leftists Pro. Ditto for the Democratic Party. So of course they did not change a policy that leftists detest but has wide support among conservatives and moderates.

[Pro Libertate]

Yeah, yeah, if only we'd lurched further to the left! Then we'd have a true utopia!

[MNG]

I don't think a lurch to the left or right would be so great Pro. It's likely a good thing both groups need those 36% of "moderates" to reach majorities most of the time imo.

I'm just pointing out that at 20% of the population liberals are not going to change much of anything, including the WOD, though I do think they would like to.

[Cass Sustein]

Re: MNG,

Obama's coalition has as many, if not more, non-leftists in it than leftists[,] Pro.

But it is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that counts, bi-atch!

[Tulpa]

Says the guy who tars libertarians with the stink of the Bush administration because he said a few mildly libertarian things in 2000.

[heller]

I knew the day would come where MNG and Tony would have to disown Obama and the Democrats.

"Serially guys, they aren't REAL liberals. We just thought they were because... um... BUSH TRICKED US! It's all you Bushies' fault! Yeah!"

[MNG]

I don't maintain that Obama and the Democrats are really conservtives, just that they are either to the right of liberals and/or must appeal to people that are to the right of liberals in order to win elections.

Heck, I've pointed out the number of conservative Democrats for years on this site (look at past discussions where some yokel notes that many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act in an attempt to prove the "left" is bad on race).

[heller]

MNG Obama and the Democrats identify themselves as liberals. You can wish upon a star and say that they aren't REAL liberals, REAL liberals would NEVER hurt us, etc. Or you can come down to reality with the rest of us.

[nekoxgirl]

Actually, I think they identify as "progressives" which then, historially speaking, makes their totalitarian tendencies a lot more understandable.

[heller]

Progressivism is just a nice colloquial term for social liberal, don't get confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

No true Scotsman liberal would support the War on Drugs.

Thanks for playing, Tony. Unfortunately, your prizes include a prison-industrial complex and a militarized local police force.

[heller]

Tony seems to be under the false idea that liberals still care about civil liberties. They've moved on Tony! They might pay that shit lip service, but actions speak louder than words.

[Tulpa]

If liberals are 78% supporting legalization, how did Prop 19 fail to pass in an overwhelmingly liberal state.

[MNG]

A majority of Californians identify as liberals? I doubt that, but I'd love to see your counter-evidence.

[Tulpa]

No True Scotsman FTW!

[MNG]

What's with this "no true Scotsman" stuff? I'm just saying as an empirical matter the majority of Californians are not self-identified liberals, I'm not saying some self-identified liberal is not "really" a liberal. Dude, I realize on this issue your side looks bad, but I can't change empirical reality for your feelings...

[Tulpa]

As I said to Tony below, if you're throwing out all but the leftmost among liberals, the residue that remains consists purely of socialists. You'd best not complain about the "liberals=socialists" meme if you're going to pull that trick.

[Tony]

How are you measuring people's political inclinations, other than how they self-identify? Are you saying there's a majority of people who are liberals, but they just don't all call themselves that? If only!

[Mr. FIFY]

How do you measure conservatives, Tony, other than to lump them all into the evil social variety?

[Tulpa]

So when George Bush calls himself a moderate, you take him at face value I suppose.

[MNG]

I'm not throwing out anyone, you are throwing people in. I'm taking the number of people who self-identify at face value, it is you insisting that's not the number of "real" liberals, the "real" liberals are defined by what you say they are.

[Tulpa]

So liberals are socialists. Got it.

[Mr. FIFY]

Fuck George Bush. Either one, really.

[Tulpa]

HW wasn't that bad in retrospect.

[Mr. FIFY]

True... I'll give HW credit: He convinced me to stop voting for Republican presidential candidates in general elections.

Unless Gary Johnson or someone like him gets the GOP nomination. That MIGHT be sufficient.

[Tony]

Because it's not an "overwhelmingly liberal state." See my citation above.

You people are hopeless. If you stopped polishing Sean Hannity's asshole for a minute you'd realize there are some issues that you and liberals agree on.

[Tony]

I'm adding "polishing Sean Hannity's asshole" to my stash of non-answer answers.

[Tulpa]

If you're restricting the "liberal" moniker to only the leftmost of the left, the economic positions become so noxious that they more than make up for the small improvement in positions on drugs. The liberals that you're suddenly claiming not to be liberal actually think there is a role for the private sector beyond a whipping boy and golden goose for the government.

[Old Mexican]

A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care. The Commerce Clause is a double-edged sword: Conservatives cannot wield it in the drug war without making it a useful tool for advancing progressive visions of federal power.

Oh, so-called conservatives will find ways to weasel out of this conundrum: "Drugs are baaaaaaaaaaad."
"We need government to protect our childreeeeeeeeen."

"Externalitieeeeeeees!"

[Ok, I made up that last one!]

[Tony]

I am such a douchebag.

[George Soros]

But you're MY douchebag, Tony.

P.S. Your check is in the mail.

[R C Dean]

While we're talking about enumerated powers, which is the one that authorizes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of the transfer programs?

[Pro Libertate]

It's on the back.

[Tony]

Immaterial. The whole reason for government to exist, is to give stuff to poor people. Period.

[John]

I don't see how SS is not authorized. They have the tax power right? And the have the general welfare clause right? That gets you there. Now medicare and medicaid are different because they regulate the hell out of things. But SS is a straight transfer program. I think the feds can do that. All it requires is the power to tax and spend, which they clearly have.

[Pro Libertate]

I don't agree. They have the power to tax and spend within the enumerated powers. The general welfare clause isn't an enumerated power; it's simply a statement about the limits of taxation.

It's absolutely clear (and is accepted among legal scholars) that the Constitution was not intended to grant the federal government general police powers. The fact that statists keep trying to wedge in such powers in different clauses notwithstanding.

[MNG]

I think its a reasonable interpretation of the tax and spend clause that the feds can tax and spend on whatever as long as it serves the general welfare or common defence.

This would not allow the government to do whatever it wants, as its regulatory powers would be limited to the enumerated ones.

[Tulpa]

What doesn't serve the general welfare or common defense?

And by the pay-the-piper doctrine, if the govt taxes at a nominal 100% rate, it can then put any conditions on tax breaks that it wants.

[MNG]

What will serve the common defence and general welfare is ascertained by our legislative and executive branch. I can't think of a better way in a democracy.

And yes the power to tax is the power to destroy, and therefore regulate. in theory that is why SCOTUS demands that the measure actually be revenue raising and not regulation disguise. But it's objective test allows pretty much anything to fly.

[Mr. FIFY]

Hate to have to point this out yet again, MNG, but "promote the general welfare" isn't "provide the general welfare".

[Tony]

Hate to have to point this out yet again, MNG, but "promote the general welfare" isn't "provide the general welfare".

Well the authors of the constitution weren't that bad with language.

[MNG]

Hate to point this out to you Fifi, but it doesn't matter, especially if congress decides that the general welfare is promoted by providing for it.

[Mr. FIFY]

I figured you two would take that tired old approach.

[Tulpa]

What will serve the common defence and general welfare is ascertained by our legislative and executive branch.

Then the clause is meaningless; they may as well have just left off the "provide for the general welfare and common defense" part if the only criterion was whether Congress wanted to spend money on something or not. Do you think James Madison was getting paid by the word or something?

I can't think of a better way in a democracy.

And that is why you fail.

How about letting people decide what to do with their money?

[Tony]

How about letting people decide what to do with their money?

They have. They've decided to give some of it to the US Treasury in order to have a civilization to live in. You have a problem with that?

[Mr. FIFY]

*I* didn't get to decide how to spend my money.

I know, I know... it's not "my" money.

[Drax the Destroyer]

"They have. They've decided to give some of it to the US Treasury in order to have a civilization to live in. You have a problem with that?"

Yeah Tony, just like how I decided to give that mugger $100 bucks last week because he had gun leveled at me and his friends were priming me for a rape. Wow, you are so right. If that mugger didn't have a gun and rape-happy friends, the entirety of civilization would collapse in an afternoon.

[MNG]

Oh please, unless you are an anarchist you are going to have taxes, yes even coerced taxes (TEH SLAVERY!) for things like police to enforce minarchist provisions, possibly intellectual property laws, contract enforcement, and such. My point is that in a democracy the legislature should decide via majority support within constitutional limitations how much is taken and where it will be spent.

[Mr. FIFY]

Fine, fine.

But how about using those "constitutional limitations" for a change? On BOTH sides of the Team Red/Team Blue divide? Why further bastardize the "promote the general welfare" concept?

I was just saying, I didn't get to vote on how MY money gets used.

[Tulpa]

So your argument boils down to, give government an inch and they'll take a mile. I would agree with that.

The difference is, you think that's OK.

[Mr. FIFY]

What Tony and MNG don't get (or do, and willfully ignore) is that social-welfare programs are great vote-bribing tools. Get people hooked on freebies, and you've likely got a voter for life.

[MNG]

Not only do I agree that welfare programs are great vote bribing tools, I think pretty much EVERY government program can fall into that territory. Look at how sheriffs offices, postal jobs and customs jobs were used in the early days of the Republic as vote inducing things. See the sheriffs race in Gangs of NY...

I will say though that the fact that these programs can be used for vote bribing doesn't to me mean they should be thrown out automatically, just policed really well (via trasnparency plus informed electorate).

[Mr. FIFY]

I'd go a lot further than "policed really well", as in "throw any fucking politician straight into prison when they abuse their power".

[MNG]

No, my argument is that everyone here is going to have support taking someone else's money to be spent on things, we're just quibbling on the things. Maybe not even that, I'm just saying the Tax and Spend Clause says the quibbling should be done and decided by Congress.

[John]

I agree with your second paragraph. But social security is not an exercise of police power.

It says right there in the Constitution that the Congress can

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

I think giving old people money and collecting taxes to do it is part of the "general welfare" even if it was a terrible idea.

[Pro Libertate]

No, no, no. If that reading were to hold, the federal government could do anything with tax money. That destroys the whole point of most of the articles that specifically delineate federal powers.

[John]

No it wouldn't. It just means they could spend money. But since they don't have a general police power, they couldn't regulate anything. Just hand out checks. If you don't read it that way, you read the general welfare clause out of the document. What does it mean if not that Congress can spend money on whatever they think is best for the country?

[Tulpa]

They could tax at a rate of 100%, and then give tax breaks for behaviors that they can't technically coerce.

[TrickyVic]

""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States""

If they can tax and spend for the common defense, and they get to define what common defense means, the same would be applied to general welfare. They can tax and spend on whatever they call general welfare.

Some people what a different approach to defense, than general welfare even though they are in the same clause.

[Jeffersonian]

Read Federalist 45.

[John]

I try to avoid that one. The parts about how the federal government is going to be smaller than the state governments is too damned depressing.

[Not Tony]

Proof that the Founders failed to achieve their goals.

I seriously don't understand why we worship the Constitution around here.

And for what it's worth, I would submit that the weakest part of our government is the judicial branch BY FAR. The founders placed *way* too much faith in the ability of the judiciary to prevent gov't growth, in mandate and size. Lincoln and the Civil War is definitive proof that the Constitution is not stable.

[Pro Libertate]

The problem with judges is that they are pro-government, pro-establishment, and often political creatures themselves. Naturally, they take a generally expansive view of government power.

[R C Dean]

Ah yes, bait taken. The feds can't spend on anything they want. They can only spend in furtherance of enumerated powers.

The General Welfare clause is part of the taxing authority:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is a statement of the purposes for which taxes may be imposed. As such, it is a limitation on the taxing power, that is, taxes may not be laid, or revenues expended, except for the named purposes.

Transfers of wealth from one citizen to another are not in furtherance of "the General Welfare of the United States."

The contemporary commentary is unanimous on this point.

[John]

But the named purpose is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

That tells me that can tax for what purpose they like and spend it for that purpose. Spending is not regulating. To read it otherwise is to read the clause out of the document. You don't like the clause that gives Congress such a broad powers. But as I tell conservatives, sometimes life is like that.

[MNG]

"But the named purpose is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;""

+1

"You don't like the clause that gives Congress such a broad powers."

+1 again...The Founders were not libertarians. Deal.

[Tulpa]

The Founders are irrelevant. What matters is what the ratification conventions thought it meant.

They certainly would not have approved a constitution giving Congress unlimited powers (remember there was no Bill of Rights at the time of ratification).

[Tony]

Why was a Bill of Rights necessary then?

[Tulpa]

Several contemporaries thought that a Bill of Rights was not necessary, since the federal government's powers were so strictly limited (and of course it was not intended to apply to state actions). Indeed, the 9th Amendment is a nod to those who worried that a Bill of Rights would be seen as a list of the things government was not allowed to do to its citizens, implying that everything else was fair game. And the existence and undue power of you and your ilk show they were right to be worried.

[MNG]

Isn't this the tenth time I mention that one can argue this doesn't give unlimited powers? Iirc John said this too a couple of times. WTF Tulpa?

[SOCIAL SECURITY CARD]

Not to be used as a form of identification.

[SOCIAL SECURITY CARD]

123-45-6789
TULPA T TULPA

Not to be used as a form of identification

[APLUT APLUT]

what you want

[Pro Libertate]

But it doesn't. The Federalist Papers and even the Supreme Court have been consistent on this point. Besides, why on Earth would the Framers insert a just-kidding-about-limited-powers clause in a document that's sole purpose was to make sure that the federal government stayed within its bounds? The same argument could be applied to the Commerce Clause, which, despite some stupid decisions, was never ever intended to be used for 90% of what it's used for.

[John]

"why on Earth would the Framers insert a just-kidding-about-limited-powers clause in a document"

Because they were not thinking about taxing and spending. The thought of a transfer program never would have occured to them. They were worried about police power and the power to regulate. They had no idea that spending power could lead to so much power so didn't think to limit it.

Again, by yours and RC's reading, the Louisiana Purchase would have been unconstitutional even if it had been approved by Congress. And not even Jefferson thought that. He was just worried about doing it without Congressional authorization.

[Pro Libertate]

Actually, I believe you're wrong about that. I seem to recall that Jefferson did think it was unconstitutional but favored the purchase, anyway, due to concerns about security. Which goes to show that nobody's perfect. Including, for that matter, the Constitution itself.

[MNG]

Pro
Well, for one thing I think like most group of pols the Founders probably just f*cked up and failed to see how broad a grant they really gave in the actual text of the IC and Tax/Spend clauses.

But I also think you can argue as I and John did above that while it allows the government to tax and spend broadly it still limits what the government can do apart from simply taxing and spending.

[Pro Libertate]

You're hanging your hat on the idea that the Founders made a grammatical error that guts the whole purpose of the document?

There is some case law on this, and it doesn't agree with your position. Ditto most of the legal scholarship I'm aware of. Certainly, those with an expansive view of government power try to find ways of making legal certain actions of the federal government by reading such things into the Constitution, but that doesn't make them right.

[MNG]

Not a grammatical error, one of foresight and failure to see that such a power could be used in ways that seemed to conflict with careful enumeration found throughout the rest of the document. They were human you know, politicians.

As to the case law I'm pretty sure that currently the tax and spend clause has been held to be grant powers much closer to John and mine's contentions than yours (that's been the case for over a hundred years iirc). The only test for whether a tax is valid is an objective one about whether it raises revenue or not...

[CrackertyAssCracker]

Wow man. I thought you believed in limited federal government. Didn't know you bought the "general welfare" == "whatever the hell we want to do" equivalency. That is depressing.

Those founders sure were crappy writers. They spent all that time trying to make a government with unlimited power over all the financial assets of the country, but instead of saying that, spent all that verbage listing specific powers to fool all us gullible common folk into believing in all that "enumerated powers" hogwash.

[MNG]

I don't believe that the general welfare clause gives the government the right to do whatever it wants to. Remember, there are two mentions of "the general welfare" in the Constitution, the preamble which is worthless boilerplate for our purposes and the one in the Tax and Spending clause. I'm just saying that that the one in that clause literally empowers the federal government to lay any taxes and spend any revenue that the Congress determines is for the common defence or general welfare of the nation. Now, I don't think this is a good thing btw, I would have wrote the clause differently. Secondly, even if it is an OK clause then clearly politically we don't and shouldn't have the federal government spend or tax anything and everything. The Constitution assumes that we the people politically are not going to use powers it grants all the time and in stupid ways. Lastly, I still submit that given this broad power the government is still limited. For instance, a law prohibiting the carrying of firearms near a school would fall outside of the IC clause (as it did) and it would fall outside of the power granted in the tax and spend clause (there is no taxing or spending invovled). So there still are limits.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

So a 100% income tax, and then only divvying out the money for pre-approved "good" purposes that promote the general wlefare would be constitutional, but just a bad idea?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

or

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Not that I expect quotes like this to change your mind. I'm sure you've read it before.

[Pro Libertate]

Tricksey, those Founders. The truth of the matter is that many of them were tobacco farmers and that every word of the Constitution was intended to get the citizenry to smoke and chew more tobaccy. If you read it closely, this truth is vividly clear.

[John]

By your reading RC, the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, even if it had been approved by Congress. I am all for original intent, but really? When Jefferson is saying "no it really can't mean that", I think you are on pretty weak ground.

[MNG]

This was the example I was thinking of too, I actually thought about it when I saw the thread the other day asking where in the Constitution is the power to make NASA rockets? Same place as the power to buy half the continent I guess...

[Tulpa]

The Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the power to make treaties and the power to purchase land for federal use. Both need to be approved by Congress, though.

[Brett L]

Not meant as bait, serious question: Acquisition by conquest would have been legal? Or is the idea that expansion could only happen by free and voluntary treaty between two sovereigns (eg Texas).

[Tulpa]

The Louisiana Purchase was the result of a free and voluntary treaty between two sovereigns, the US and France.

[MNG]

I'm guessing the Injuns who lived on the land were likely not asked for their views or consent...

[Pro Libertate]

In theory, anyway, the Indians came pre-suppressed.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

Uhhh .... OK. It was. Next objection.

[JW]

The General Welfare clause is part of the taxing authority

But, isn't that 'f', just an olde 's'?

So, then it's really the General Welsare Clause. I don't know how taxing people conforms to the General Welsare.

[Pro Libertate]

This is the most apt and cogent argument in the entire thread.

[Old Mexican]

Re: R C Dean,

While we're talking about enumerated powers, which is the one that authorizes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of the transfer programs?

The "Might Makes Right" power which is implied by the way the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive act.

Satisfied?

[heller]

Government tyranny: Not just for Democrats!

[dhs]

But, but, but . . . drugs are bad, right?

[heller]

Tony and MNG have finally snapped:

"But, but, Obama isn't really a liberal!"

"But, but, Democrats aren't really liberals!"

"But, but, liberals aren't really liberals!"

[Tony]

I believe Obama is a liberal, albeit a very pragmatic one.

Now what about the national Democratic party? Depends on how you define the center these days. From my perspective, it's lurched so far to the right (and never the other way) in recent decades, that the national Dems are pretty much a center-right party.

Liberals make up a minority of the population in this country. If we had our way, the WoD would end. It's pretty much a universally accepted policy position among liberals. You just don't want to believe that because you want to see liberals as evil like the moronic tribalist you are.

[Pro Libertate]

If you had your way, the free market would end.

[Tony]

What free market?

Painting me as some ridiculous strawman who wants total state control over all aspects of life says more about you than me, imo.

[Pro Libertate]

Dude, you've made some pretty outlandish claims for government power hereabouts.

Besides, you're just a sock puppet.

[Mr. FIFY]

Maybe Tony, himself, does not seek total control of our daily lives... but his party sure as fuck does.

Not that Republicans are any better.

[Tony]

Well put me firmly in the anti-WoD column, for whatever that's worth. I don't believe in state power for its own sake, and I believe in strong checks on state power.

I suspect it's just that you are a radical on this question and so you suppose your opponents are equally radical the other way.

[Mr. FIFY]

If you're so dead-set against state power for its own sake, why do you vote Democrat?

Not that voting Republican is better.

[Tony]

FIFY,

Because I don't see Democrats using state power for its own sake. If anything that's a neocon thing.

Liberals and for the most part Democrats believe in state power as a means to various ends. Those include reduced poverty, more equality, more universal access to basic needs, what have you. Things the natural market won't provide. If it had done so, we wouldn't need the state.

[Pro Libertate]

Saying that you have worthy goals to justify seeking mostly unlimited power to achieve them means that you're missing the point. Once we sufficiently unshackle the government, those in power at the time will do whatever they want. And I can assure you the last thing tyrants give a shit about are those without power.

[Mr. FIFY]

Yeah, Democrats are all about the altruism thing. They never see a social issue as a stump/platform/springboard to higher power/keeping said higher power - it's all for The Common Good.

I no more believe that than I believe social conservatives do what they do for The Common Good. It's bullshit either way.

[Pro Libertate]

Let's face it, the very worst regimes we can think of--the Nazis, the U.S.S.R., the Khmer Rouge, etc.--all justified their actions with some level of stated utopian vision. The ends justifying the means is a morally bankrupt philosophy.

I tend to think that the desire to do anything to achieve utopian ends is one of the really bad traits we humans are capable of. It seems to bring out the worst in us.

[Tony]

The ends justifying the means is a morally bankrupt philosophy.

True, if the means are bad. I don't think government doing things is bad, necessarily, although it can do bad things.

I tend to think that the desire to do anything to achieve utopian ends is one of the really bad traits we humans are capable of.

Agreed. Who's being a utopian? The thing is, you believe exactly as I do--government is a means to certain ends--you just have fewer ends.

[MNG]

See, I'll break with Tony here. I think both most liberals and conservatives see state power as a way to achieve certain means, but that many of both Republicans and Democrats see state power as an end. Look how many Democrats seem to care about appeasing the interest groups that they think can be relied on to get them back into their positions of power. Often that appeasement invovles things that run counter to liberal ideology, and there's your proof they don't just want to use the power as a means to their ideological ends.

[Pro Libertate]

We can't trust either major party. In fact, we're fools to trust people with much power at all. Which is why we need limited government. That's an end in and of itself. To protect all of us.

[Mr. FIFY]

That's putting a lot of faith in way too many Rs and Ds, MNG. The pols who get into politics and *don't* use it as a means to gaining/perpetuating power, are likely so close to statistical zero as one can get.

[Tony]

MNG,

True, but to paraphrase Bill Maher, both parties are controlled by special interests, but the ones that control the Dems are less scary.

It's clear that corporate America tends to prefer Republicans, though they don't mind hedging their bets. We can mostly thank Republicans for the ease of access, though.

[Mr. FIFY]

"less scary" = "good", right?

[Tony]

Now I'm going to use MY definition of "the center" to justify my position that my party is virtually just like Rush Limbaugh licking Sean Hannity's asshole.

[MNG]

Sheesh. I answered this one above, but here we can go again I guess.

Since liberals make up a small % of the population, Obama and the Democratic party are either not liberals and/or they have to appeal to non-liberals to gain any power. I don't doubt many Democratic officials are actually liberals, and I don't doubt they are usually the lesser of the two evils to liberals, but yes, the Democratic Party has not for a long time pleased most liberals heller. Hell, the GOP doesn't please most conservatives and they are nearly half the nation.

[Tulpa]

So liberals really ARE socialists!

I'm afraid you just threw your center-left economic policy baby out with your center-left social policy bathwater.

[Tony]

It's only polite to let people call themselves what they want to be called, and not presume to call them something else.

If "socialist" were less of a dirty word I might call myself one. But for the very reason that it IS a dirty word, you want to label liberals as such.

[Pro Libertate]

Why is it a dirty word, anyway?

[Tony]

The vestiges of the Red Scare. It's a popular slur among the FOX News demographic.

[Pro Libertate]

I object to socialism because I think it doesn't work very well economically and because I think it gives far too much power and responsibility to the government. I also think it's immoral, but that's another matter.

In any case, I don't think it's a dirty word here in the sense that communism is. It's accurately descriptive of what a small minority in this country wants to achieve. Not that the traditional meaning of socialism is the end goal--indirect control seems sufficient to many here.

[Mr. FIFY]

Abuses during the "red scare" aside, those concerned about said scare did have a point. Doesn't excuse said abuses, but the points still stand today.

[Tulpa]

So when Bill O'Reilly calls himself a moderate, you wouldn't be impolite and call him a conservative.

[Tony]

Compared to what counts as conservative these days, he is a moderate.

[MNG]

Again we differ. When I consider all the harm done under governments and movements calling themselves "socialist" I am glad it is a dirty word here.

Socialism's problem is that it makes the government both the sole legitimate source of force AND everyone's economic master. This gives a tremondous amount of power to it that it can abuse.

Like most liberals I think economic power alone can inhibit freedom. This is where the break with libertarians usually comes. However, my break with many liberals is that they do not heed Hayek's warning that empowering government via socialism simply consolidates that economic power with the power of force the government already has. If liberals are rightly wary of that latter power (think of the ACLU's relentless battles to restrain cops or liberals battles with militarism), they are far too often guilty of giving another weighty tool (economic power) to the same source.

[Tony]

'Socialism' has been associated with awful regimes and the best countries on earth today. That's just because it's historically a popular idea, though the word hasn't caught on in the US since the beginning of the cold war (it was once just as popular as everywhere else).

In the end it's just a word. What matters is how much of the economy the government controls. It's always gonna be some proportion of the total. Labels are always imprecise, and I'd prefer to talk about specific policies, labeling myself always with that caveat.

[nekoxgirl]

What "best countries" do you consider socialist? Cause if you mean the European ones I kind of thought they were dealing with debt and riots everytime they try to do something about the debt.

[MNG]

Tulpa
I do think if you want to know what liberals think about economic policy you should ask self-identified liberals, not moderates or conservatives that vote Democrat. And while I am sure you would not like their answers, I doubt you'd get mostly straight-up Marxism.

[Tulpa]

Dude, unless the country is less than 10% socialist, then the leftmost 20% is going to be mostly socialists.

You could only get away with claiming liberals aren't socialists so long as you accept center-left folks under the liberal tent.

[MNG]

Well, I do think the nation is less than 10% socialists. But I realize by your definition of socialist as "anyone who disagrees with me on economic policy" that number is going to be much higher.

[Paul]

Awesome. I'm really glad to see people like Rittgers make this argument. It's often overlooked. I haven't RTFA yet, but I hope he points out that while conservatives started the war on drugs (arguably), liberals have embraced it in the overall theme of 'public health'.

Your healthcare is paid for by the public, so what you put in your body is in the public interest due to the externalities of personal choices.

[Tony]

You're almost there. Liberals do take a public health approach to drugs, and do consider addiction to be a social problem.

Their solution, though, as opposed to conservatives, is not to lock people up for being addicts, but for medical treatment to be made available. Liberals view addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

[Charlie Rangel]

"Liberals view addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one."

Not me, bub. Leave me out of that category.

[Paul]

Not really. Their approach is two-pronged.

I would agree that liberals take a more charitable view of the user/addict, but they still fall generally into line behind banning the substance.

[MNG]

I will somewhat agree here. Many people in the rehab-related professions, and most of them seem pretty "liberal" on drugs, decrying the law enforcement approach generally, still often say they want the drug to be illegal in some way because that is what pushes folks into rehab a lot. I hate this argument, but it is common in my experience.

[me]

You say this in the face of your guys continuing to prosecute the drug war full throttle. Explain this to me.

[JW]

Liberals do take a public health approach to drugs, and do consider addiction to be a social problem.

It's still just as wrong and still a crutch for an oppressive and meddlesome public policy.

It's a problem for the addict and those around him. Full stop.

[Tony]

But what if you add all the addicts together?

At least we can agree that government treating addicts is better than government locking them up.

[BakedPenguin]

Depending on the facility, this is probably true. One big problem is that those caught with drugs may well not be "addicts", yet they are very likely to have to go through the machinery.

The assumption that "drug user" = "addict" is very strong, and very untrue. It's funny, but if you went up to anyone who drank alcohol and accused them of being alcoholics, they would probably be offended, yet most of them have no problem believing this of those who use cocaine, pot, opiates, etc. Even hallucinogens - which are essentially impossible to get addicted to, since users develop tolerance extremely fast, and can't really use the drug(s) more than twice a week.

[Tony]

I totally agree with this. Treatment for addiction should be voluntary except perhaps in extreme cases. I'm talking about making it more available.

[JW]

But what if you add all the addicts together?

You have the makings of a great party

At least we can agree that government treating addicts is better than government locking them up.

No, no we don't. The state has no right to interfere with what I choose to put into my body.

Jail is still jail whether it's run by wardens or physicians.

[R C Dean]

Their solution, though, as opposed to conservatives, is not to lock people up for being addicts, but for medical treatment to be made available. Liberals view addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

Of course, if you refuse to comply with your treatment program, you can be locked up.

You'll pardon me for not being all excited about the liberal nexus between medical problems and legal ones.

[me]

The right or "conservatives" have no interest at all in limiting government power and they never have. They are and always have been authoritarians, just as are "progessives". We have to get rid of this notion that either the left or the right is anything except authoritarian. Being "conservative" now in this country, despite the rhetoric, has nothing whatsoever to do with liberty or limiting government power.

[Tulpa]

That's the 0.5% spirit!

[heller]

The truth often hurts, Tulpa. Get over it.

[Tony]

Conservatives are interested in limiting government power with respect to regulation over commerce, and actually the GOP actually puts its money where its mouth is on that subject. Liberals want to limit government power with respect to privacy invasion, warmaking, and criminal justice abuses. Dems have been fairly shit at accomplishing liberals' goals. But I don't think either actually advocates for total dictatorial rule.

[BakedPenguin]

Conservatives are interested in limiting government power with respect to regulation over commerce, and actually the GOP actually puts its money where its mouth is on that subject.

No, they don't. Do you actually read any of the articles here? The regulatory law and apparatus grew greatly under Bush the lesser, Obama's alleged "deregulator".

Ironically, one of Bush's regulations was mark-to-market accounting for bank assets, which helped cause a few of the bank failures. It was (very quietly) de-regulated by the Obama administration.

[Mr. FIFY]

"But I don't think either actually advocates for total dictatorial rule."

Not all at once. Incrementally, sliding in that direction, yeah... that's where Team Red/Team Blue are heading.

[BakedPenguin]

"But I don't think either actually advocates for total dictatorial rule."

I don't think that Dubya or Obama are actual, theoretical socialists. However, neither showed any hesitation to step in and take over massive portions of the US economy. Not for nothing did Hugo Chavez joke that Bush was now to the left of him...

[Jordan]

Liberals view addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

As opposed to the heinous crime of not purchasing health insurance. And the tortured reading of the Constitution required to support that view leaves the door wide open for every single policy enacted as part of the War on Drugs. Natural allies? Puhlease.

[Mr. FIFY]

+1, Jordan. Thanks for contributing.

Cue Tony in 3... 2...

[James Anderson Merritt]

Not that I am holding out any false hope, but there are still nearly 700,000 provisional and damaged ballots yet to be counted in California, a number which is substantially larger than the margin of Proposition 19's supposed defeat. Many county tallies remain officially incomplete, and the Statement of Vote from the CA Secretary of State isn't even due to be certified until December 10. It is still mathematically possible (though admittedly unlikely) for Prop 19 to pass. At the moment, anyone who says it failed is engaging in the same speculation that the news media did on election night, when they reported that the medical mj proposition in Arizona appeared to be losing. In fact, when all the votes had finally been counted, that proposition actually won (as announced last weekend). In CA, maybe the present trend against Prop. 19 will hold for the as-yet-uncounted ballots, and maybe not. Here in the SF Bay Area, a Bay Area Rapid Transit extension measure also looked headed for defeat even days after the election, just a few years ago. But some weeks later, the elections officials declared that it, also, had passed. All I'm sayin': It ain't over until its over.

[Raymond]

I'm still trying to figure out how the HC law is explained by statists as legal under the constitution's "interstate commerce" clause, when the product (health insurance) is something that I can't buy interstate-ly, i.e., across state lines.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Prop. 19 vote count update: As of Friday November 19th, NO on Prop. 19 leads by a margin that is larger than the number of yet-unprocessed ballots, so it is now mathematically impossible for Prop. 19 to achieve a "Dewey Beats Truman," come-from-behind-and-confound-the-media-pollsters type of victory. The final vote count may be more balanced than the current 53%-NO/46%-YES. But Prop. 19 is now effectively dead. Long Live whatever takes its place on the ballot in 2012.