What can the federal government ban?

[Fly320s]

This article states that the US Constitution does not authorize the FedGov to ban anything, including drugs and guns.  I've always thought the same thing, but obviously the FedGov has banned many items and controls other items and areas that are not authorized in the US Constitution.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/can-the-federal-government-ban-anything/

Even though it is true that the government currently bans all kinds of things, I am asking a serious question. Let me expand and clarify it. Is the federal government authorized by the Constitution to make illegal the possession of any substance that it deems it to be harmful, hazardous, immoral, addictive, threatening, damaging, injurious, destructive, unsafe, or dangerous to an individual or to society?

My questions: How are the bans legal, or upheld in court? 

[Pb]

Raping the interstate commerce clause.   

[Brad Johnson]

It can try and ban anything it wants until the issue is challenged legally and settled in SCOTUS. Unfortunately we also have the wonderful ICC; one of the most, if not THE most, bastardized, intrusive, and easily manipulated federal laws currently in existance. Given that pretty much everything falls under "interstate commerce" the Fed.Gov can use it for all manner of banning buffoonery and have SCOTUS back them up. Short of an outright reversal of the ICC, Uncle Sam will continue using it to shop at Banschwerks 'R Us.

Brad

[vaskidmark]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union¹, establish Justice², insure domestic Tranquility³, provide for the common defence⁴, promote the general Welfare⁵, and secure the Blessings of Liberty⁶ to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Everything except ⁴ is a piece of cake to throw out as the granted authority.  A  high school sophomore with just enough civics and history to be dangerous could explain why ⁴ fits in the list.

Everything that comes afterwards in the Articles, Amendments, and Laws is merely commentary.

I'm not saying these are my personal beliefs on the matter - just trying to answer the question posed.

stay safe.

[griz]

If they really believe that the constitution would have to specifically allow a ban before it would be valid, then it would follow that any law would have to be mentioned before it would be valid.  So a federal law against, for instance, murder, would require a constitutional amendment because the passage of such a law is not mentioned in the body of the constitution.  Not likely that the Supremes would agree with such a conclusion.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

The government can ban anything and everything it wants. If we let it.

[Tallpine]

Funny that they thought they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but now ban anything and everything with just a federal law passed by one vote, or often without any law whatsoever (executive orders and bureaucratic regulations).

[lupinus]

In practice, anything it wants. In my not so expert legal opinion? Anything it wants, through the proper process if not already granted that power. Let the house and senate pass an amendment, let the states ratify it. Or the opposite in which the house, senate, or states say *expletive deleted*ck off. This is supposed to be the built in check to limit the federal governments authority. Fat load of good that it's done us to one degree or another pretty much since inception.

Which is why I find the "living document/modern interpretist" bit so amusing. The process to change it is right in there. Changing to meet modern needs is a built in feature, with proper checks and balances, which is the problem to them. The process is based on the notion that the federal government has limited authority, and that to get more they have to go begging to the people (via their representatives) and to the states. The vast majority of washington and most people think it's the other way around, the notion that it isn't elicits a reaction ranging from perplexed to violently offended.

[HankB]

Funny that they thought they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but now ban anything and everything with just a federal law passed by one vote, or often without any law whatsoever (executive orders and bureaucratic regulations).

Good comment - I'm going to file it away in my memory and wait for an opportune time to pull it out and use it. 

[tokugawa]

They will push as far as they can, until they run into sufficient resistance.
This is standard MO for governments.

[lupinus]

They will push as far as they can, until they run into sufficient resistance.
This is standard MO for governments.

I'm waiting for them to pull something egregious enough that states just plain say *expletive deleted*ck off. Not armed "we're leaving, peace out" secession, but a simple "No, we aren't doing that. Go sit on the Supreme court ruling/regulation and rotate." We're already seeing it in smaller scales, with lawsuits flung around every five minutes to block regulations and things like sanctuary cities and counties where getting that gay marriage license is pretty much a no go despite the supreme court ruling. The more the point is gotten that alphabet soup agencies have gone full retard with regulations and the courts have gone rabid to back them along with implementing their own beliefs into their rulings and creating defacto law, the more I fully expect we will see this. Particularly from states that are fully opposed to whatever the regulation/ruling is.

[Jamisjockey]

whatever it wants, dear subjects.

[Scout26]

Everything that comes afterwards in the Articles, Amendments, and Laws is merely commentary the how.



stay safe.

[brimic]

whatever it wants, dear subjects.

Whatever we allow them to. They bleed and burn just like everyone else.

[Hawkmoon]

It can try and ban anything it wants until the issue is challenged legally and settled in SCOTUS. Unfortunately we also have the wonderful ICC; one of the most, if not THE most, bastardized, intrusive, and easily manipulated federal laws currently in existance. Given that pretty much everything falls under "interstate commerce" the Fed.Gov can use it for all manner of banning buffoonery and have SCOTUS back them up. Short of an outright reversal of the ICC, Uncle Sam will continue using it to shop at Banschwerks 'R Us.

I think it's a very valid question. The Interstate Commerce Clause is the hook that allows the feds to claim jurisdiction, but having done so -- where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to ban anything? Remember, the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people.

Here is the enumeration of the powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Hawkmoon]

If they really believe that the constitution would have to specifically allow a ban before it would be valid, then it would follow that any law would have to be mentioned before it would be valid. 

Nope. The Constitution explicitly grants to the Congress authority to "regulate" interstate commerce. There is a clear distinction between "regulate" and "ban" or "prohibit."

[Blakenzy]

The Federal Government can Ban YOU via drone strike (or IRS prosecution), so quit these rebellious troubemaker thoughts.