Constitutional Means to Fight Smoking Bans

Smokers United ^ | January 11,2005 | Robert Hayes Halfpenny

[bob3443]

Constitutional Arguments Against Smoking Bans

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Smoking is a freedom of speech i.e. personal liberty. Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Converting private property for public use refers to using property for the benefit of the population at large. To wit: condemning land for the use of building a municipal government center. The property owner will receive fair compensation.

If Government regulates the use of private property in such a way as will harm the profitability of a business located on said private property, or the fair market value of the property itself, and by such regulation declare or imply that said property is in fact public, it stands to reason that the government in the position of owing just compensation to the owner of said property.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In order to be compensated for business losses directly attributed to a smoking ban, business owners will have the right to demand a jury trial if such losses are in excess of $20.00

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Were a smoking ban to be enacted and said ban was violated by either the owner of a business or a customer of the business, such fines could be no more than a minimum fine imposed on any other minor infraction of the law. Further, any action taken by the enforcing body of the government can not be so excessive as to destroy the business itself. Such action might be, but not limited to. Criminal prosecution, excessive fines, graduated fines, cancellation of food, liquor or other types of licenses or any other action that could be construed to be use of power to intimidate the private property owner or client or guest of said owner.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Constitution is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people. The passage of any type of ban is a “bad faith”: activity local and state government that violates the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. Such bans further pits the general desires of a specific group of people against the rights of the private property owner and the clients of said property owner.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The rights’ of the people are always preeminent to the rights of the government.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A ban of any kind by its very definition is an abridgement of the privileges of the citizens. Bans create an inequality as they would relate to the protection of the laws.

Amendment XVIII Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. (The fact that this amendment was repealed I feel speaks to the fact that the government overstepped its bounds by ratifying an amendment that was unto itself patently unconstitutional. It further demonstrates how even as great as our Constitution is, it can still be held hostage when those who govern us lose sight of the true purpose of this document.)

Amendment XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

[SheLion]

Where do you come up ETS is, "categorically dangerous"?
Can you support this with indisputable facts?

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects  

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"Wonder how long it'll be before they start throwing parents in jail if they smoke and removing the children from their homes...whether or not they have foster children, adopted children, or biological children. The day is coming when they try, and oh boy!"

If we continue on our present course, THAT day is coming. No doubt about it.

I had no idea regarding the restrictions on Foster parents in MAINE, but it isn't surprising.

[SheLion]

Dated a guy like that once...BIG MISTAKE!! Mr. Ex, however, has the total package...looks and BRAINS! Rrrowr!

You know how the anti's like the say that men who smoke are weak wussies?  Here's one:

[Final Authority]

And your point?

[exnavychick]

Be still my heart! LOL!!

Thanks...that pic made me smile. I think Mr. Ex is hotter, though. (But not by a whole lot, though...:))

[Just another Joe]

I understand your point and agree about public property.
A ballot initiative or the vote of elected officials is more than enough to ban smoking on public property.
And although it's going a bit far because its outdoors, I would say this includes parks, beaches, etc that are owned by the government.

When we talk about privately owned businesses, however, the government has gone too far already.

[newgeezer]

How could it be free enterprise if the government forced them to do it?

Sorry, I guess I didn't make it clear enough when I shifted gears by starting that paragraph with, "Even if that's not the case." In other words, if PM is doing it voluntarily, it's not hypocritical. It's free enterprise.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If your comment was meant to be serious it appears that you are oblivious to the financial impact of zoning.

[exnavychick]

I know, and that is the scary part that a lot of these anti-smokers are overlooking.

I know for a fact that at least one child has been removed from their home because he was obese...I wonder if folks are going to start on people who let their kids eat junk food, too. In which case, I'm doubly screwed... I actually BAKE THEM COOKIES and let them eat French fries!

[johnb838]

How can an amendment be unconstitutional? Doesn't it stand on its own as part of the document?

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"but to cast any doubt on the right of smokers to smoke anywhere and anytime they want is sufficient to provoke the Smoke-uber-alles crowd to name-calling."

I don't know any smokers like that now, or when I was a child and smoking was acceptable.

[Madame Dufarge]

Next thing you know, you'll be encouraging them to run with scissors....... ;-)

[johnb838]

It's definitely something the government is handling by force and intimidation rather than law, so I'm pretty sure it is unconstitutional one way or another.

[SheLion]

Here's another cutie:

[exnavychick]

...and poke each other with sharp sticks, jump off the furniture and play in traffic!

It's important that children are brought up properly, yanno!

[johnb838]

I've been coming to some conclusions lately:

1) The immigration problem is not about jobs, it's about socializm.

2) The homosexual problem is not about civil rights, it's about socializm.

3) The fifth column media problem is not about free speech, it's about socializzm.

and 4) The anti-smoking bigotry is not about health, it's about socializm.

These fools are either stupid or they're the enemy. Spurn them.

[exnavychick]

:) I think he's funny, but not my thing...don't like blond men. Mr. Beautiful-But-Jerkish was blond. LOL

[johnb838]

Lay off the all caps, friend.

[SheLion]

I think he's funny, but not my thing...don't like blond men. Mr. Beautiful-But-Jerkish was blond. LOL

Oh that's ok. :)

[appalachian_dweller]

>> I actually BAKE THEM COOKIES and let them eat French fries! <<

LOL!!!

When I was 16, my folks would buy me a carton of smokes a week. I guess now they'd be jailed for that. How times have changed (and not for the better).

How I miss being free. /sarcasm - kinda/