I have conceded more than once that I learn from you. Now is your ego all better ?lonewolf wrote:Nope, wrong again...only this time I will add: "AS USUAL." Jeff goes by Congress's rules and Congress goes by the Supreme Court's rules. Just about every piece of regulation legislation that Congress submits has a canned preamble: "Hawk wrote:Oh I get it. We should live by Jeff's rules... Let's call Congress, the President and the Supreme Court and tell them Jeff has a rule.lonewolf wrote:
I have an handy rule of thumb that works well for things constitutional. If it crosses state lines, the feds can regulate it. Certainly food and drugs can fall in this category and a certain level of federal oversight is justified.
"Findings- Congress finds that--
(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of xxxxxxxx is inherently commercial in nature;
(2) xxxxxxxx regularly move in interstate commerce;
(3) to the extent that xxxxxxxx trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;
(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of xxxxxxxx are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;"
But, you didn't know that, did you? You just went off again and got all sarcastic and fell a little further into the ignorance abyss. Good thing I am here to enlighten you about such things, isn't it?
We have discussed the constitution and the federalist papers before. You have your interpretation and the supreme court has a different one.
Still waiting for you to explain Jeff's Rule (don't post what you don't know) to Joe...