Um, no. Those things were also going on on Silk Road. It wasn't JUST drugs. It was also, actually, guns and CP and God knows what else.
I always wondered about all the innocent men, women and children Weasley murdered during his time with/as the Dread Pirate Roberts, who, after all, "leaves no survivors."
In very few states, unless the drugs were administered against the will or without the knowledge of the victim.
I do not think most rape laws currently reflect the "common law" rules under which most people would like to live.
The "agent provocateur" bit. Make outrageous claims pretending to be a democrat or a republican to discredit them or generally cause infighting.
It's not about persuasion, it's about disruption.
Let's just say "don't read." Read NOTHING on
Fucked ur mom.
I'm waiting for B***** to weigh in on the representation of women in systemd.
Yes it can. [Gonzales v. Raich]
The issue was not in dispute in that case:
Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power
In my opinion, by the way, Wickard v. Filburn, the New Deal era decision that says making something for yourself (i.e. growing wheat to feed your own chickens, or growing marijuana to use yourself) affects interstate commerce (because you otherwise might have bought it instead, affecting the price) and can thus be regulated, is a travesty that is long overdue for the Supremes to revisit and reverse, as they sometimes do when a previous court broke something substantial.
But even if you agree that feeding your own wheat to your own chickens is a suitable subject for federal regulation under the commerce clause, don't you think it's a stretch to say that affecting the price of a banned substance by NOT buying it on the illegal market is a legitimate reason for the Federal Government to ban your growing and consuming your own plants? Either way you don't buy in interstate commerce, so how can the difference in your behavior affect it? (Or was it Congress' intent for you to buy illegal drugs?)
Sometimes more than half the Supreme Court justices follow some argument to a point beyond sanity.
The Commerce Clause?
Nope. (The powers it DOES confer were already alluded to in my posting.)
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"Regulating" = making regular, setting standards, etc. It does NOT include banning whole classes of trade entirely.
If they want to PROMOTE drug and gun sales, that's fine. B-)
Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished. Propz to GNAA
Let's devil's advocate a bit...
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of") That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)
So it could be argued that, by the Federal Government's own basic laws, these were NOT crimes and the "Dread Pirate" was a freedom fighter.
(I won't even get into the issue of the Anarchist claims that ANY government is necessarily illegitimate, coercively imposing its will on people who did not pre-approve this and are not attempting, themselves, to coerce others. The people who promulgated the Constitution were doing their best to get governments off people's backs.)
... and the authorities will question you.
The store doesn't need these people. Why not just fix the policies to ban them without affecting regular coupon users?
Because the coupons are legitimate offers of a reduced price on a limited number of purchases of an item. An "extreme couponer" just happens to be accepting a larger number of them than a more typical shopper.
To reject a person who uses "too many" of them (while not rejecting ALL coupon use by ALL customers) may constitute consumer fraud on the store's part and get them into serious hot water.
The real shock here is all that prime real estate has been just thrown away when it could have been used to build houses to sell to suckers who then sue the airport for being loud and ruining their enjoyment of their home.
I kind of have this idea that the comments section on CNN.com or foxnews.com is all troll bots. Right wing troll bots arguing with left wing troll bots arguing with agent provocateur right wing troll bots pretending to be deranged left wingers arguing with agent provocateur left wing troll bots pretending to be deranged right wingers.
Basically, the internet is trolls all the way down.
The alternative, that those are real people expressing their actual opinions, is too horrifying to contemplate.
Wow. "How'd he die?" "Lag." Been true plenty of times in World of Warcraft, and now possible IRL.