Limbaugh's pill use not extraordinary, lawyer says

Miami Herald ^ | Jan. 26, 2004 | DANIEL de VISE

[tahiti]

"Do you actually believe there is some constitution right to purchase and consume illegal drugs?"

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Crystal clear, concise, and unambiguous that the right to consume the chemical of your choice is retained by the individual and thus cannot be denied or disparaged by our federal government.

That is why the the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights.

FYI: My chemical of choice is beer and wine.

[bvw]

Too many presumptions on the course of future events in that analysis.

[In other posts] you put too much weight on your own read of the public records stuff. When two laws or regulations are at odds, what is the rule?

[ClintonBeGone]

Too many presumptions on the course of future events in that analysis.

Can you be more specific? Either the P will or will not charge Rush. There is only one element of the crime we don't know the answer to - if the doctors knew about the other scripts. Thats not a lot of presumptions.

When two laws or regulations are at odds, what is the rule?

Well, there are a number of rule of stautory construction. One is that the specific trumps the general. Of course, I don't agree that there IS a conflict in the law, but thats where you would start if there is.

[bvw]

"There is only one element of the crime we don't know the answer to"

"the crime": presumtuous.

"only one element we don't know": presumptuous

[ClintonBeGone]

"the crime": presumtuous. "only one element we don't know": presumptuous

Can't stop using Clinton speak, can you? :)

[ClintonBeGone]

I suppose you won't make a judgment on Michael Jackson until he's convicted. Unless of course, like the rest of the libertines, you think that stuff is alright regardless of what the law says.

[ClintonBeGone]

Crystal clear, concise, and unambiguous that the right to consume the chemical of your choice is retained by the individual and thus cannot be denied or disparaged by our federal government.

Great. I'm sure Rush is glad to have you on his side.

[ClintonBeGone]

However, in that entire scenario you have a prosecutor acting to the detriment of a third party (at the time) and an unrepresented person at that time.

Thats kinda what prosecutors do. Its their job to act to the detriment of people who commit crimes. And sometimes they cut deals with the little fish to get bigger fish. The fact that Rush was 'unrepresented' has no bearing on this case unless they asked him to waive some right during that time. There is not even an accusation that that happened.

Could you explain the difference between the constitutional requirement that probable cause be found before a warrant is issued, and this statutorily different (?) probable cause you refer to?

[RS]

If the SAO weren't leaking info to the press then Mr. Black wouldn't have to field questions from the press would he?"

Is this one of those " do you still beat your wife " questions ?

http://myfloridalegal.com/sunshine

Please check into the Florida Sunshine laws which REQUIRE the release of documents - and if you are one of those who insist that these were not "plea bargaining" then there is no way the SAO could legally withhold them.

( what people are contending now is that these were in fact plea bargains and further that somehow they are exempt from this law )

Heres a snip from it's FAQ -

Q. Can an agency refuse to allow public records to be inspected or copied if requested to do so by the maker or sender of the documents?
A. No. To allow the maker or sender of documents to dictate the circumstances under which documents are deemed confidential would permit private parties instead of the Legislature to determine which public records are public and which are not.

[bvw]

libertines

Presumptuous. And wrong.

Further ...

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive, or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and Obtaining Happiness and Safety

-- George Mason, Virgina Declaration

[ClintonBeGone]

You think George Mason had in mind debilitating mind altering drugs and sleeping with young boys?

[RS]

"Hey, RS, every time someone nails you on your stupidity, you move on to some other argument. Dumbass."

You must be a lawyer of the "Black" persuasion -
Unsupported arguments, unnwarrented attacks

( and you probably watch too much " That 70s show" are you bald also ?)

[bvw]

Those two things are as different as hell and heaven -- it's a mark to your own sanity that you put them in the same box.

[RS]

"I'll give you a buck for your house.
There. We were "in negotiations" over the price of your house."

Nice try, but if I did say no and come back with a counter, we WOULD be in negotiations, and if I had accepted your offer we would have concluded the negotiations you started.

No thanks, come back again in seven figures and we can get serious... See, NOW we are in negotiations...


.... or perhaps you think that Black was only joking when he made his initial proposal ?

[an amused spectator]

Opinions are like RS - everybody has one. :-)

[RS]

"FYI: My chemical of choice is beer and wine."

... and by the 18th and 21st amendments, the government of the US has shown that it can, indeed, withdraw and restore the legality of your use of your chemicals of choice.

[RS]

"Opinions are like RS - everybody has one. :-)"

Gee, how original, and witty !

Do you hire yourself out for parties ?


BTW- does this mean you do not have an intelligent reply to my post, or are you training to be a member of holdonnow's playhouse ?

[an amused spectator]

BTW- does this mean you do not have an intelligent reply to my post, or are you training to be a member of holdonnow's playhouse ?

I see that you've unilaterally elevated the status of your post to "intelligent". :-)

[tahiti]

"...and by the 18th and 21st amendments, the government of the US has shown that it can, indeed, withdraw and restore the legality of your use of your chemicals of choice."

I agree. But please recognize the distinction between an "amendment" and a "law."

Article V, enumerates the proper procedure to amend the Constitution.

No "law" can amend, abridge, contradict, or violate the Constitution.

Thus, the 18th amendment was a full recognition that prohibiting the consumption of alcohol by our federal government with just the enactment of law, would have been unconstitutional. That the people had the "retained" right to consume the chemical of their choice.

[RS]

Hit the wrong button , didn't mean to send it private...

"The third letter is the rejection. "

Haven't seen it yet - got link ?

When I bargain, lets say with a street vendor in Seoul, I don't have to conclude the bargaining process successfully in order to have engaged in bargaining or negotiating.


Black made an offer to settle, SA rejected and countered, Black rejected -
Call it what you will, Black still was trying to cut a deal to resolve the situation.

( How long before this drops down to the level of what is "is" ? )