What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Foxfyre]

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other. [/QUOTE]


What you describe was obliterated by Maubury v. Madison...early on.

To some/ Courts can DO what they will..and the other two branches can't say boo about it.

Ah, but here you see you have a corruption of the original intent of the Constitution which was that the court would determine the correct legal application of the law when it is in dispute and the court would ensure that every individual would not have his/her rights superceded by any authority and would receive lawful justice under the laws of the land. That concept has been replaced by an activist court that is making laws which the Founders never intended and would see as a gross corruption of Constitutional purpose for the courts.

It's the same as Wry using a specific court case or actions of legislators as a rebuttal to my definitions of modern American conservative and liberal. The fact that the system has been misinterpreted, misused, abused, and corrupted by those in power does not change the core principles in the least. Conservatives disagree with those who would transfer unconstitutional power to government; liberals distrust the individual with that power.

This has been a good discussion folks, and I hope it continues. Now I must leave for a dinner date but will return. Have a good New Year's Eve evening.

 

[Dragon]

Regarding Marbury v. Madison and the Court's power of judicial review, it's true that this was not a foreseen outcome of the Constitution's language but it is one that could have been foreseen. It follows logically and inevitably. Here's what the document says about the Supreme Court:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI.

The key phrases here are "the judicial power of the United States," "original jurisdiction," and "appellate jurisdiction." What do these mean?

"The judicial power" means the authority to try all cases under federal law, as to both fact and law: to determine guilt or innocence, and to resolve civil disputes under federal law. "Original jurisdiction" means that a case can be brought directly before the Supreme Court without going through a lower court first; "Appellate jurisdiction" means that the case has to work its way through the lower courts before it can be appealed to the SCOTUS.

So, you have a case that has been decided in a lower court and that is appealed to the Supreme Court. This is the only way that the Court can rule on the constitutionality of a case. The Court cannot peruse laws recently passed by Congress and, on its own initiative, say, "Nope, that's unconstitutional, sorry!" But when a case comes before it, the power to strike down the law as unconstitutional is implied in the Court's possessing of "the judicial power."

Why? Because the Court can rule, in effect, "We decide the case this way, because the law in question conflicts with the Constitution. What's more, that's how we will rule in the future if any similar case comes before us. Any matter decided, any conviction reached or lawsuit resolved, on the basis of this law, will be reversed and struck down as soon as it's appealed to us, so you might as well not bother, bucko."

The Court cannot, of course, write law. But it most definitely can kill law.

The passage from Article VI is what gives the Court ultimate jurisdiction over state law as well as federal law, insofar as state law may conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

 

[The T]

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other. [/QUOTE]


What you describe was obliterated by Maubury v. Madison...early on.

To some/ Courts can DO what they will..and the other two branches can't say boo about it.

Ah, but here you see you have a corruption of the original intent of the Constitution which was that the court would determine the correct legal application of the law when it is in dispute and the court would ensure that every individual would not have his/her rights superceded by any authority and would receive lawful justice under the laws of the land. That concept has been replaced by an activist court that is making laws which the Founders never intended and would see as a gross corruption of Constitutional purpose for the courts.

It's the same as Wry using a specific court case or actions of legislators as a rebuttal to my definitions of modern American conservative and liberal. The fact that the system has been misinterpreted, misused, abused, and corrupted by those in power does not change the core principles in the least. Conservatives disagree with those who would transfer unconstitutional power to government; liberals distrust the individual with that power.

This has been a good discussion folks, and I hope it continues. Now I must leave for a dinner date but will return. Have a good New Year's Eve evening.

The highlighted/bolded are the cogent points for you leftists. *Thank me*.

Staitists distrust abnything they don't have control over...while ignoring the Constitution and it's construct that was geared toward the individual American Citizen...Over gubmint.

Matter of control. Statists still think Government controls everything...they are inheriently WRONG on many levels. Especially since they seek the vote of the individual.

They make the flawed assumption that the individual will take thier side without consult.

___________________________________________

Enjoy your 2012 New Year.

Pleasure to be in your company.

Salute you as one of the wisdom trust on USMB.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other. [/QUOTE]


What you describe was obliterated by Maubury v. Madison...early on.

To some/ Courts can DO what they will..and the other two branches can't say boo about it.

Ah, but here you see you have a corruption of the original intent of the Constitution which was that the court would determine the correct legal application of the law when it is in dispute and the court would ensure that every individual would not have his/her rights superceded by any authority and would receive lawful justice under the laws of the land. That concept has been replaced by an activist court that is making laws which the Founders never intended and would see as a gross corruption of Constitutional purpose for the courts.

It's the same as Wry using a specific court case or actions of legislators as a rebuttal to my definitions of modern American conservative and liberal. The fact that the system has been misinterpreted, misused, abused, and corrupted by those in power does not change the core principles in the least. Conservatives disagree with those who would transfer unconstitutional power to government; liberals distrust the individual with that power.

This has been a good discussion folks, and I hope it continues. Now I must leave for a dinner date but will return. Have a good New Year's Eve evening.

Have a wonderful evening. I hope you return to this issue, you are one of the few on your side who challenges me (which I need and enjoy). Since time out is called on this thread I will post a link which may help us frame future debate. Stay safe, it's amateur night on the roadways.

Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

I will explore other links and the ideas of others, this is the first on point one I've found.

 

[The T]

Ah, but here you see you have a corruption of the original intent of the Constitution which was that the court would determine the correct legal application of the law when it is in dispute and the court would ensure that every individual would not have his/her rights superceded by any authority and would receive lawful justice under the laws of the land. That concept has been replaced by an activist court that is making laws which the Founders never intended and would see as a gross corruption of Constitutional purpose for the courts.

It's the same as Wry using a specific court case or actions of legislators as a rebuttal to my definitions of modern American conservative and liberal. The fact that the system has been misinterpreted, misused, abused, and corrupted by those in power does not change the core principles in the least. Conservatives disagree with those who would transfer unconstitutional power to government; liberals distrust the individual with that power.

This has been a good discussion folks, and I hope it continues. Now I must leave for a dinner date but will return. Have a good New Year's Eve evening.

Have a wonderful evening. I hope you return to this issue, you are one of the few on your side who challenges me (which I need and enjoy). Since time out is called on this thread I will post a link which may help us frame future debate. Stay safe, it's amateur night on the roadways.

Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

I will explore other links and the ideas of others, this is the first on point one I've found.

UMKC...refreshing...Liberalism...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm going to go with the most flagrantly obvious one. Um...the war on drugs... Clearly Unconstitutional and a massive violation of our privacy. Look at the entire way it's fought and there is zero constitutional authority for what is done in the name of a war that doesn't even work.

As much as I DETEST the war on drugs, the constitutional authority for it is clear in the authorization of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. That includes banning commerce in certain products. It's miserably stupid, counterproductive, fails any reasonable cost-benefit analysis, and should be abandoned the day before yesterday, but it's not unconstitutional.

Except that the war on drugs is not about commerce, and never has been.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsrxpVUKUK0]Richard Nixon War On Drugs 1972 - YouTube[/ame]

The simple fact is that the entire war on drugs was not argued to be part of Congress's commerce clause powers until years after it started, it was initially justified under the treaty clause of the constitution to bring US law in line with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971.

You should have paid more attention in civics class.

But you ignored the major part of my argument that the Federal government only has power to defend the United States and clearly war after war were not doing that.

That's just not the case. What are you referring to here, the provision in Article I, Section 8, clause 1 that limits taxing/spending to providing for the common defense and general welfare, and makes no provision for spending for offense? But there's a separate authorization for Congress to create an army and navy, and no restrictions on how it's used by the executive except for that "declare war" thingy. There just isn't anything in the Constitution that forbids the waging of aggressive war by the United States. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.

At least since you don't support Constitutional limits on things you support, you're trying to be even handed with things you don't. But the better answer is that if you want it and it's not in the Constitution, change the Constitution via the way it was written to be changed, which is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9 or a vote of 535 people.

Look, I keep saying this but apparently it's falling on deaf ears. I'm not talking about what the Constitution SHOULD be, I'm talking about what it IS. And it just plain ISN'T a document that sets up a limited government along libertarian lines. It sets up a hugely powerful central government. Why do you think it was so controversial at the time? Sure, it's a government of enumerated powers, but those powers (two of them in particular) are so broad that this almost doesn't matter. Just to cite one obvious example, look at the taxation clause of Article I:8.

"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;"

What limits does this place on taxation? Well, all taxes have to be for the common defense and/or general welfare of the U.S., but those are pretty vague phrases that can mean damned near anything. And all of those three specific types of taxes have to be uniform, e.g. the government can't impose a duty on goods coming into New York without imposing the same duty on goods coming into Los Angeles. Otherwise, there are no limits at all! As I noted elsewhere, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the government from imposing a 100% income tax on everybody. (Something in common sense, yes, but in the Constitution, no.)

I love it when people that try to argue that the government is unlimited in taxation ignore the fact that it was actually necessary to amend the constitution in order to enact an income tax. That alone proves you are incorrectly interpreting the constitution.

Now add in the regulation of commerce clause, and -- to pose another extreme hypothetical -- the government could convert us to a full-on socialist economy. How? By levying taxes on corporations equal to their stock value and earmarking the revenues to purchase all of the companies so taxed (or just allowing the tax to be paid in stock rather than money). (The government can't just nationalize the companies without compensation because of the 5th Amendment, but this procedure would amount to the same thing.)

Since you were obviously wrong in your attempt to argue that the taxing authority of Congress is unlimited, why should I lend any credence to your argument that the commerce authority of congress is also unlimited, especially when numerous court decisions have clearly said that there are limits on that authority, even if they have not clearly defined what they are?

As for your scenario about socializing the economy by raising taxes on corporations, I will simply point out that the same clause that you so conviently skipped over while talking about taxes, the one that prevents direct taxation without apportioning it back to the states,, would prevent what you described since the amendment that allowed income tax only allowed income tax, not other forms of direct taxation.

This is what I mean when I speak of the Founding Fathers as not being all liberals, all conservatives, or all libertarians (at that time liberal and libertarian were identical). A lot of this language I'm convinced came from Hamilton. He was definitely a strong-government advocate as we can see from the suggestions of his that didn't make it into the final document, like a lifetime presidency with an override-proof veto.

Anyway, the Constitution doesn't create a government of unlimited powers, but it does create one of very broad powers. To this date, the government has never come close to exerting the full breadth of authority that the document grants it, even though it has expanded quite a lot over the time of its existence. Really, if you want to complain about big government, certain of the Founding Fathers are the ones you should bitch at.

Yet, quite obviously, those powers are a lot more limited than you think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

If you're speaking of member of congress one must remember that most of them put ideological purity way behind the pragmatic decision always first in the mind of the elected official, "How will this (vote, action, etc.) effect ME!"

You are the idiot that is arguing that I should take the fact that Republicans are calling themselves conservative is proof that conservatives have no values, I am just pointing out how absurd that is by using the same standards for Democrats and liberals. If you like it one way, but not the other, I will suggest that the problem is your premise, nit the facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Regarding Marbury v. Madison and the Court's power of judicial review, it's true that this was not a foreseen outcome of the Constitution's language but it is one that could have been foreseen. It follows logically and inevitably. Here's what the document says about the Supreme Court:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI.

The key phrases here are "the judicial power of the United States," "original jurisdiction," and "appellate jurisdiction." What do these mean?

"The judicial power" means the authority to try all cases under federal law, as to both fact and law: to determine guilt or innocence, and to resolve civil disputes under federal law. "Original jurisdiction" means that a case can be brought directly before the Supreme Court without going through a lower court first; "Appellate jurisdiction" means that the case has to work its way through the lower courts before it can be appealed to the SCOTUS.

So, you have a case that has been decided in a lower court and that is appealed to the Supreme Court. This is the only way that the Court can rule on the constitutionality of a case. The Court cannot peruse laws recently passed by Congress and, on its own initiative, say, "Nope, that's unconstitutional, sorry!" But when a case comes before it, the power to strike down the law as unconstitutional is implied in the Court's possessing of "the judicial power."

Why? Because the Court can rule, in effect, "We decide the case this way, because the law in question conflicts with the Constitution. What's more, that's how we will rule in the future if any similar case comes before us. Any matter decided, any conviction reached or lawsuit resolved, on the basis of this law, will be reversed and struck down as soon as it's appealed to us, so you might as well not bother, bucko."

The Court cannot, of course, write law. But it most definitely can kill law.

The passage from Article VI is what gives the Court ultimate jurisdiction over state law as well as federal law, insofar as state law may conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

Is this analysis as insightful as your analysis of the ability of Congress to lay direct taxes?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives say that, then undermine it

You have to understand economic conservatives and social conservatives.

Many historians are economic determinists. They see the American, French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions and the hundreds of millions of dead people for example and know that economics is far and away most important. Hence, anti-statist, economic conservatives are , "in effect" the important or real conservatives because economics rules.

If social conservatives want the state to enforce contracts, prosecute murder, or ban gay marriage this is not sufficient to say they are not conservatives, as these are trivial matters. Conservatives are not anarchists! I hope you understand now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Really, if you want to complain about big government, certain of the Founding Fathers are the ones you should bitch at.

actually, as soon as Americans got a look at what the liberals or Federalists intended for America Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1791 to establish that the American Revolution had been against all government, not just the government of England. His Republicans soon won and the Federalists were never heard from again until the communist inspired New Deal. For good measure they shot Hamilton.

Jefferson called it the "Second American Revolution". Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Court cannot, of course, write law. But it most definitely can kill law.

That of course is 100% mistaken! Anyone can write laws but the court's power to intrepret them or say what they mean is 1000% more important. If they can find the right to an abortion in the Constitution and the right to make everyone buy health insurance they can find anything they want and so the concept of a limited government, which is the concept of America, is destroyed.


Hence, smart people have to be with Newt and attack the treasonous liberal courts anyway they can.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As much as I DETEST the war on drugs, the constitutional authority for it is clear in the authorization of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

of course that is insane!! The commerce clause was designed to promote free trade among the states after the Articles of Confederation led to trade wars among the states, not ban drugs, makes us buy health insurance, or impose socialism.

Liberalism is nothing less than subversion of the basic principle of America.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah, but here you see you have a corruption of the original intent of the Constitution which was that the court would determine the correct legal application of the law when it is in dispute and the court would ensure that every individual would not have his/her rights superceded by any authority and would receive lawful justice under the laws of the land. That concept has been replaced by an activist court that is making laws which the Founders never intended and would see as a gross corruption of Constitutional purpose for the courts.

It's the same as Wry using a specific court case or actions of legislators as a rebuttal to my definitions of modern American conservative and liberal. The fact that the system has been misinterpreted, misused, abused, and corrupted by those in power does not change the core principles in the least. Conservatives disagree with those who would transfer unconstitutional power to government; liberals distrust the individual with that power.

This has been a good discussion folks, and I hope it continues. Now I must leave for a dinner date but will return. Have a good New Year's Eve evening.

Have a wonderful evening. I hope you return to this issue, you are one of the few on your side who challenges me.

This is a joke; you tell those who actually -do- challnge you to FO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That of course is 100% mistaken! Anyone can write laws but the court's power to intrepret them or say what they mean is 1000% more important. If they can find the right to an abortion in the Constitution

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, nor did the Court find such a right. There is a right to privacy, however:

Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold v. Connecticut

In the context of the right to privacy the state may not interfere with personal decisions regarding procreation.

and the right to make everyone buy health insurance

The Court has found no ‘right to make everyone buy health insurance,’ nor is there any legislation being so considered. The issue of the ACA concerns Congress’ Commerce Clause authority to regulate healthcare, having nothing to do with ‘rights.’

they can find anything they want

Such as the right to self-defense and to own a handgun, neither of which are 'found' in the Constitution.

and so the concept of a limited government, which is the concept of America, is destroyed.

On the contrary, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to equal protection of the law, all act to restrict government excess; the Court’s role in this regard for the last 74 years has been vital in ensuring individual liberty.

Hence, smart people have to be with Newt and attack the treasonous liberal courts anyway they can.

This makes no sense, given the fact liberals have done more to protect individual liberty and restrict government excess for almost half a century – from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, liberals have fought to protect civil rights from state and local governments’ unwarranted intrusions into citizens’ private lives.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That of course is 100% mistaken! Anyone can write laws but the court's power to intrepret them or say what they mean is 1000% more important. If they can find the right to an abortion in the Constitution they can find anything there


There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution

There is a right to privacy, however:

privacy is not an abortion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if privacy is an abortion and growing marijuana for personal use affects interstate commerce then the Constitution can mean anything; anything can emanate from the liberal penumbras and America is lost. What cant emanate?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This makes no sense, given the fact liberals have done more to protect individual liberty and restrict government excess for almost half a century

that of course is perfectly absurd and perfectly liberal. The Federal Government expands every year. It now spends $4 trillion a year and has us $15 trillion in debt. Your liberty is protected by $15 trillion in debt, China stealing all our jobs, and a huge liberal recession with 10% unemployment????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[The T]

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

If you're speaking of member of congress one must remember that most of them put ideological purity way behind the pragmatic decision always first in the mind of the elected official, "How will this (vote, action, etc.) effect ME!"

You are the idiot that is arguing that I should take the fact that Republicans are calling themselves conservative is proof that conservatives have no values, I am just pointing out how absurd that is by using the same standards for Democrats and liberals. If you like it one way, but not the other, I will suggest that the problem is your premise, nit the facts.

Too much REP...at this juncture...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

privacy is not an abortion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?

No one ever said it was. Laws banning abortion are un-Constitutional because they violate the right to privacy.

if privacy is an abortion and growing marijuana for personal use affects interstate commerce then the Constitution can mean anything; anything can emanate from the liberal penumbras and America is lost. What cant emanate.

You’re confusing individual liberty with Congress’ authority to regulate commerce. The issue in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) had nothing to do with growing marijuana for personal use, rather, it addressed the question of whether growing marijuana is part of a class of activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, as established by precedent. Since local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, Federal legislation effecting the availability of marijuana – including its prohibition – were authorized by the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

This makes no sense, given the fact liberals have done more to protect individual liberty and restrict government excess for almost half a century

that of course is perfectly absurd and perfectly liberal. The Federal Government expands every year. It now spends $4 trillion a year and has us $15 trillion in debt. Your liberty is protected by $15 trillion in debt, China stealing all our jobs, and a huge liberal recession with 10% unemployment????

Quite right. We have been transferring power to and growing the U.S. government since Teddy Roosevelt. And by now, nobody with even half a working brain believes the government does this for any purpose other than to benefit those in government. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are all culpable with the only difference being in the noble sounding motives they brainwash the people with in order to do it. Democrats would have us believe it is to help the less fortunate. Republicans would have us believe it is to promote more prosperity for all. In the end however, while some policies are more inadvertently beneficial to the people at large than others, it is all mostly to increase the power, influence, authority, power, and personal fortunes of those in government.

Conservatives know this and would restrict the ability of government to increase its own power, prestige, influence, power, and personal fortunes at our expense. Conservatives want the government to secure their rights and then stay out of their way.

Liberals are less likely to be able to see it or admit it even if they do. Government is their 'god', their 'sugar daddy', their doorway to Utopia so they think. So, they MUST believe their people are the more generous, noble, altruistic, protector of liberty, etc. etc. etc. despite all the evidence to the contrary and dare not see it any other way.

Conservatives want government restricted to the Founders' intent in the Constitution.
Liberals want government to do what the liberals want to happen in all aspects of life.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You’re confusing individual liberty with Congress’ authority to regulate commerce. The issue in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) had nothing to do with growing marijuana for personal use, rather, it addressed the question of whether growing marijuana is part of a class of activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, as established by precedent. Since local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, Federal legislation effecting the availability of marijuana – including its prohibition – were authorized by the Constitution.

of course if growing weed for person use affects interstate commerce and privacy affects abortion then they affect everything and the Constitution is lost.

Again, liberal, what can't emanate from the liberal penumbras of the Constitution?????