WOW! ISN'T THIS DRUG WAR GREAT!

Boortz.com ^ | 11-22-2006 | Neal Boortz

[Dick Bachert]

Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.

I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.

The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.

There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.

[robertpaulsen]

"Read this for the Founders' view of the Commerce Clause."

I did. It's really Jon Roland's view, now isn't it? Jon Roland the Libertarian?

[robertpaulsen]

Congress was regulating the interstate commerce of wheat. Are you concurring that this regulation was unconstitutional?

[Zon]

Short and eye-opening read that you may be interested in.

How stare decisis Subverts the Law: 

...It is difficult to estimate how many unconstitutional legislative provisions are adopted each year by Congress, but a plausible number is more than 20,000, or about as many as the number of bills introduced each year. There is simply no way that the federal courts can handle all the cases that might arise under that many provisions. They are almost forced to rely on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, but members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, and passing the duty to the federal courts of striking legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.

[Zon]

As I quoted in post 499...

"..It does not speak of a power to regulate commerce that "concerns" more than one state, or even commerce between persons of the same state that somehow "concerns" other states..." The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause

The meaning of "concern" in the context quoted is incidental. Nor does the original meaning of "commerce" extend to manufacturing, production, mining or agriculture.

[tpaine]

"-- They are almost forced to rely on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, but members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, --"

Yep, Congress is used to assuming that the majority vote that puts them in office means that a 'majority will' backs their 'legislation', constitutional or not.

Sad to say, but it nearly is 'time' as Claire Wolfe put it..



The Role of a Majority Vote in a Free Society
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1744214/posts

[dcwusmc]

I really couldn't say what Mr. Roland's political persuation is, nor does it matter much. But if that's too rich for you, try this: http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm

[dcwusmc]

"Marines are pledged to protect & defend our Constitution..."

Unlike certain posters here, protected by their anonimity. I swear I don't know why they post here, a CONSERVATIVE website, by all standards. Unless they are unreconstructed Stalinists, what is it they wish to conserve, besides big and bigger government??? I mean even RUSSIA pretty much gave up on communism, so what's with these guys???

[dcwusmc]

Click here

More info on the original subject of this thread. It appears that the cops' story is falling apart. (Big surprise) Also, the murder victim managed to get five hits for maybe five or six rounds expended... GREAT shooting. Too bad her aim was a bit low. I never did care much for center-mass shooting.

[tpaine]

Good cite on Barnett, acknowledged by all as one of our finest constitutional scholars. -- Roland echos many of Barnetts points:


"-- That the Constitution uses the term "to regulate" in this sense is made plain by the Second Amendment, the first portion of which reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
A "well-regulated" militia is not a prohibited militia but one that is well drilled.

Even those who read the Second Amendment as a "collective" rather than an individual right on the basis of this preface concede--indeed their theory requires them to insist--that the power to regulate the militia that the Constitution elsewhere confers upon Congress does not include the power to forbid or prohibit the militia.

By their interpretation, the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of the state militias.
By the same token, the power of Congress to "well-regulate" commerce among the states does not include the power to forbid or prohibit commerce.

James Madison described a direct parallel between the regulation of the militia and the regulation of commerce when he asked:

How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other points? . . .

How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided without a similar knowledge of some internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other?
These are the principal objects of federal legislation and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire. --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


DCW:
-- Unlike certain posters here, protected by their anonymity.
I swear I don't know why they post here, a CONSERVATIVE website, by all standards. Unless they are unreconstructed Stalinists, what is it they wish to conserve, besides big and bigger government???
I mean even RUSSIA pretty much gave up on communism, so what's with these guys??? --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Our communitarian opponents think it's oh so clever to get away with posting their democratic majority rule agitprop on a conservative board, under the guise that somehow they too would support & defend our Constitution. -- Fat chance.

[patton]

Care to see #498? Or does it not support your preconcieved notions? Why did the USSC Chief Justice, say the US FED cannot regulate murder?

[patton]

"Bologna."

Well, aren't you the eurudite one.

Care to see #498? Or does it not support your preconcieved notions? Why did the USSC Chief Justice, say the US FED cannot regulate murder?

[patton]

Care to see #498? Or does it not support your preconcieved notions? Why did the USSC Chief Justice, say the US FED cannot regulate murder?

I saw your repeated responses - when you learn to do research, call me.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't need research, all I need is the Constitution to show you are full of fecal matter...

[patton]

Well, that is one opinion. Ignorant, ill-informed, somewhat lacking in wit, but an opinion nonetheless. I wish you well of it.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You imply the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are ignorant of your lofty standards???

[patton]

No, I qouted the chief justice of the USSC. You said, "Balogna."

I think our readers differentiate between the USSC, and "Balogna."

Even if you cannot.

[dcwusmc]

General Patton, SIR. Our mutual acquaintance, Frank Driftwood, is just another one-note Johnnie. If something serves to grow gubmint or his precious war on Americans who disdain his edicts on how they may enjoy themselves (or even MEDICATE themselves), he is all for it; to point out his fallacious reasoning (or lack thereof) puts you firmly on his enemies list, along with that of his cronies, such as they are. Sometimes I think it's one guy with three or more accounts on three or more computers in his mom's basement.

[patton]

My screen name has nothing to do with general patton, or the patton family - it is just my name.

[dcwusmc]

OK. Gen. Patton is one of the few Doggies I have a good deal of respect for. I thought you might have been aware of him and were honoring him with your screen name.

[patton]

Nope - my g'grandma, Ms. Bertha Cortez Patton, said he was the most foul-mouthed, uncouth asshole she ever met.

My name is patton, leave it at that.