[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos It doesn't say anything specifically disallowing this?

The fact that it doesn't specifically allow it is enough. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to tell the federal government what limited powers it has.

That means that the FDA is covered under the power to regulate commerce. I refer you to article I section 8.

There is nothing in the commerce clause that allows for agencies such as the FDA - particularly since it isn't commerce itself that the FDA regulates.

One could argue (possibly successfully if it ever came to court) that clause was written to mean interstate commerce and not commerce among the area covered by the states. I don't care. I am making a moral judgment that it is in my best interests and the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America to interpret the constitution in a specific way.

Moral judgements are irrelevant to the discussion. The Constitution means exactly and only what is actually written and the federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically named in the Constitution.

I feel obligated to make this moral judgment because I am not a machine and I know large numbers of people would hypothetically die otherwise. This is also why I would strongly argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to nerve gas and hydrogen bombs.

What you feel is irrelevant: what do you think? The second amendment says what it says and means what it says and whatever moral implications result from it are really irrelevant. If one doesn't like some of those implications then there's an amendment process built into the Constitution.

Would you do it? Would you cause all that pain and suffering over the literal interpretation of a document? No, I'm not implying that you are evil if you disagree with me. Evil implies causing harm when you saw yourself as having a choice not to. As near as I can tell you are merely a man of principles. If this is the case I am afraid we are at an impasse because I am not a man of principles at heart and there really is no reconciling those viewpoints.

I'm suggesting that the Constitution means exactly and only what it says. Whatever moral implications that may be behind it are not particularly relevant. So, while I might not happen to see a need for my neighbor to own a nuclear missile or a canister of sarin gas, there is no authority under the second amendment for the government to tell my neighbor he can't have them. Does it mean I have to sit back and do nothing? No, because the Constitution also has an amendment process.