On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Petro wrote:
If you go back 10 years, and if "this country" was the soviet union, a tomato purchased from the wrong person could get you in trouble.
Entirely HOW the item was sold.
This is true in this coutry. Licquor is legal if purchased thru the approved store.
Try selling the same thing out of the back of your truck.
It is the product, or how the product is sold.
Why is this so hard to fathom. Black markets are simply markets that are not approved of by the reigning force monopoly. That could also be read as illegal, however, there are many goods in the united states that are only illegal by color of law, not in actual fact. Of course the fact that the regulations are only under color of law won't stop you from spending time in the cooler if you're caught. Most of these laws have to do with assigning law making to bureacrats. Are there any legal historians out there that have researched the nature of bureaucracies like the FDA, DEA and BATF and the lattitude that congress has given them in declaring various good illegal? How much power could congress hand over to a department before the law giving them the power could be declared unconstitutional? For example, a constitutional amendment was necessary to make alcohol illegal. Why was this necessary? Why was it not necessary to do the same for every other substance? And if not for every other substance, then for substances in general? "Congress shall have the power to declare intrastate trade in various products illegal." It would be very simple. It would be *the* prohibition act. It would cover everything from encryption, to newpapers, to alcohol and other drugs. What is the basis for bureaucratic power and has it ever been formally challenged in the supreme court? My guess is that this power has not been seriously challenged since Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court and they decided that the the welfare clause was a broad grant of power to the federal government. If I remember correctly, a closely related decision by the Supreme stated that the commerce clause did not allow the banning of weapons from "school zones" because even though having weapons in school zones might effect commerce it would effect to such a small degree that the commerce clause didn't reach that far. The supreme court said they didn't know how far it did reach. It would be interesting to push the supreme to rule on the welfare clause. Could it reach far enough to ban nicotine? Could it reach far enough to grab the fatty mc'ds hamburger out of your hand? Could it tell you what sports are too dangerous? What about skiing? Car driving? Parachuting? Scuba diving? I'm beginning to look forward to Y2K. jim