re: 5. Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal government can overrule a state about internal state commerce?
It's under the Interstate Commerce Clause as interpretted in Wickard v. Fillburn and reaffirmed in Raich v. Gonzales.
The reasoning goes, by buying or manufacturing marijuana solely inside the state, you are NOT participating in the interstate market for Marijuana. As such, your non-participation affects the interstate market (supply and demand). And that affect is sufficient to provide a constitutional hook for the Fed gov't to regulate and it is this legal reasoning upon which the entire federal drug regime resides.
Which makes SCOTUS's decision in Obamacare even more ridiculous. They stuck that down on commerce clause grounds but upheld under the gov't taxing authority. Just absurd.
Most Americans have become little more than bleating sheep, perfectly happy to be sheared by faceless bureaucrats.
What I find most troubling on this point, is the degree to which my fellow liberals are fine with this because it's president Obama in charge. I try arguing with my friends, thinking they'd be reasonable but all I get are:
"I've got nothing to hide," or "if it keeps us safe from the terrorists, then so be it." So frustrating. Such ignorance.
Also, Smith v. Maryland is just absurd. The 4th Amendment is conditioned upon peoples' "reasonable expectation of privacy," and as such, each one of these 4th amendment carve outs (airports, 100 mile from border searches, DUI checkpoints, dog sniffs, public safety exceptions (SEE Tsarnaev), national security letters etc . . .) weaken our protections in two respects: (i) our reasonable expectations are diminished, which leads to an equal diminution in our expectations of privacy and (ii) authorities will find ways to make their searches fit within those exceptions. When you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.
Keep up the righteous outrage Juan! These abuses warrant it.
I don't think this following statement has been confirmed:
[the NSA] got Verizon phone records of all US telephone calls, mobile and otherwise, within the US and between the US and abroad,
As I believe the order was limited to Verizon Business Services and Verizon Business Network Services, which, I do not believe has been confirmed to include all mobile and telephone calls.
They may procure such records but I don't believe this order demonstrated as such. Still messed up.
I remember reading your blog every day during the build up of the war.
You were 100% right about everything. I wish you weren't. It wasn't brain science. I mean, Juan Cole is an expert, the expert says, the case is flimsy, this will be a disaster. Case closed.
I'm sure you're doing ok as a tenured prof at one of the best universities in the US. But, your appointment at Yale was scotched over this. Whereas, everyone who was 100% wrong, keeps getting promoted.
One thing that's particularly vexing is the Orwellian term that has entered our lexicon as a result of all this: WMD's
To categorize (i) WWI mustard gas together with (ii) 50 megaton Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb, is a gross perversion of the English language.
Kinda like those black kids who sat at the Woolworth's counter.
***
I see what you're saying, but, you need to step back and look at what you're considering.
The "provocation" is essentially, "they made us shoot them." There's only so much lying and BS the IDF and Israel can put forth. It's not so much that they want "bloodshed," it's rather, they want the world to see what Israel is doing to the Gazans. It'd be preferable that the goods and supplies get through, but, if the Israeli's want to shoot up a bunch of peace activists, then yah, hopefully the world will see the Israeli's actions like the Police in the South who sought firehouses and dogs on black people demonstrating, back in the 60's.
Your comment suggested - "an outdated music sheet" - that GAZA is already free? or somewhat free? or somewhat not totally occupied, right? Then why can't a bunch of peace activists with rice and healthcare supplies dock their boat in a port in Gaza?
You reference "make change politically," but when the US itself is afraid of it's own Congress (any position the mildest bit critical of Israel can lead to huge electoral difficulties) when trying to rein in Israel, then, we really have to rely on the Activists to draw attention to the continued Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.
I can't tell you the number of times I hear people say, "they got out of Gaza and look what happens," and it's like, they're still in fricking Gaza.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
re: 5. Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal government can overrule a state about internal state commerce?
It's under the Interstate Commerce Clause as interpretted in Wickard v. Fillburn and reaffirmed in Raich v. Gonzales.
The reasoning goes, by buying or manufacturing marijuana solely inside the state, you are NOT participating in the interstate market for Marijuana. As such, your non-participation affects the interstate market (supply and demand). And that affect is sufficient to provide a constitutional hook for the Fed gov't to regulate and it is this legal reasoning upon which the entire federal drug regime resides.
Which makes SCOTUS's decision in Obamacare even more ridiculous. They stuck that down on commerce clause grounds but upheld under the gov't taxing authority. Just absurd.
Why are you more bothered by Snowden then by our government violating all of our 4th amendment rights?
Most Americans have become little more than bleating sheep, perfectly happy to be sheared by faceless bureaucrats.
What I find most troubling on this point, is the degree to which my fellow liberals are fine with this because it's president Obama in charge. I try arguing with my friends, thinking they'd be reasonable but all I get are:
"I've got nothing to hide," or "if it keeps us safe from the terrorists, then so be it." So frustrating. Such ignorance.
Also, Smith v. Maryland is just absurd. The 4th Amendment is conditioned upon peoples' "reasonable expectation of privacy," and as such, each one of these 4th amendment carve outs (airports, 100 mile from border searches, DUI checkpoints, dog sniffs, public safety exceptions (SEE Tsarnaev), national security letters etc . . .) weaken our protections in two respects: (i) our reasonable expectations are diminished, which leads to an equal diminution in our expectations of privacy and (ii) authorities will find ways to make their searches fit within those exceptions. When you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.
Keep up the righteous outrage Juan! These abuses warrant it.
Dear Professor Cole,
I don't think this following statement has been confirmed:
[the NSA] got Verizon phone records of all US telephone calls, mobile and otherwise, within the US and between the US and abroad,
As I believe the order was limited to Verizon Business Services and Verizon Business Network Services, which, I do not believe has been confirmed to include all mobile and telephone calls.
They may procure such records but I don't believe this order demonstrated as such. Still messed up.
I remember reading your blog every day during the build up of the war.
You were 100% right about everything. I wish you weren't. It wasn't brain science. I mean, Juan Cole is an expert, the expert says, the case is flimsy, this will be a disaster. Case closed.
I'm sure you're doing ok as a tenured prof at one of the best universities in the US. But, your appointment at Yale was scotched over this. Whereas, everyone who was 100% wrong, keeps getting promoted.
One thing that's particularly vexing is the Orwellian term that has entered our lexicon as a result of all this: WMD's
To categorize (i) WWI mustard gas together with (ii) 50 megaton Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb, is a gross perversion of the English language.
Ok, we all know Republicans are full of it. It's a shame you had to take the time to rebut their garbage.
But what about the legit critiques of her potential appointment?
Re: Rwanda/Congo (protecting Rwanda (a recent ally) from war crimes abuses; Re: Not having an independent power base in the administration?
Thinking of Rush Limbaugh = Another effective form of Birth Control
"[I]t’s a publicity stunt, pure and simple."
Kinda like those black kids who sat at the Woolworth's counter.
***
I see what you're saying, but, you need to step back and look at what you're considering.
The "provocation" is essentially, "they made us shoot them." There's only so much lying and BS the IDF and Israel can put forth. It's not so much that they want "bloodshed," it's rather, they want the world to see what Israel is doing to the Gazans. It'd be preferable that the goods and supplies get through, but, if the Israeli's want to shoot up a bunch of peace activists, then yah, hopefully the world will see the Israeli's actions like the Police in the South who sought firehouses and dogs on black people demonstrating, back in the 60's.
Your comment suggested - "an outdated music sheet" - that GAZA is already free? or somewhat free? or somewhat not totally occupied, right? Then why can't a bunch of peace activists with rice and healthcare supplies dock their boat in a port in Gaza?
You reference "make change politically," but when the US itself is afraid of it's own Congress (any position the mildest bit critical of Israel can lead to huge electoral difficulties) when trying to rein in Israel, then, we really have to rely on the Activists to draw attention to the continued Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.
I can't tell you the number of times I hear people say, "they got out of Gaza and look what happens," and it's like, they're still in fricking Gaza.