Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (42218)	12/21/2010 2:04:25 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Re: "I don't think the supremes every actually ruled against prohibition based on judicial review of the law," Are you referring to ALCOHOL prohibition?????????? I never said that the court 'ruled against the law'. What I said was that EVERYONE (the Supreme Court included!) was of the firm legal belief that --- for the feds to PROHIBIT alcohol --- required that they get an amendment in the US Constitution doing so. And that to REMOVE the prohibition also required an amendment be placed in the Constitution. That the federal government DID NOT have the AUTHORITY to ban it unless the constitution was changed to give them authority. But then, in later years, activist Supreme Court justices EXPANDED the reach of the 'commerce clause' by REINTERPRETING what it meant... and that brings us to today where they supposedly have authority over damn near everything (even over things that DO NOT enter into inter-state commerce....) Re: "There a more recent case on medical marijuana which obviously didn't make it in the Supreme Court...what was her name...Raich case?" Yes. There are a few others as well.