Posted on 01/13/2005 11:53:07 AM PST by 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.
Gabz, following that line of reasoning, public nudity laws are tantamount to precluding peacable assemblage in that those who may choose to go naked have to seperate themselves from the assembly.
It is inevitable. The world moves, over time to the workers paradise of pure communism. Socializm is but a necessary phase. Find ways to pit the americans against each other. Disrupt their society. Scoff at their laws but hold them accountable. Use their own freedoms against them. Use their agreeable natures to get them to agree to the most egregious behaviors like abortion, drug addiction, and homosexuality. Soon the revolution will be at hand.
And yes, FAT as in people is next. It's already begun!
What about homosexual smokers? I think there are a lot of those.
It is only within the last decade or so that the smoker even considered the fact that someone might not like his smoke. Then after some started speaking up many smokers made a point of lighting up to annoy people or because they were bound and determined to do whateverthehell they wanted no matter what. On buses I would have to tell them to put them out and made it clear that they would be put out voluntarily or involuntarily.
I have been around smokers all my life and lost my dad and father-in-law prematurely to smoking. Fortunately I never developed the habit nor have my boys. There is nothing positive about this disgusting habit and to find some lauding it and condemning anything negative said about it is just sad. Particularly on a site which values truth and information.
Heh heh...like him enough for both of us, eh?
Bad girl. ROFL!!!
Here's a bit of truth for you.
Some people enjoy smoking.
You should be grateful, it gives you the opportunity to make condescending little lectures and call people disgusting.
Such a frisson of self-righteousness you must get.
My parents did bought some for me, too, once they made me quit my job to concentrate on schoolwork. It took a long time for my stepdad to forgive me after I am "came out", though...he was really disappointed.
God how things have changed-When I got pregnant with my first almost 44 years ago the doctor advised me NOT to quit. Said to wait because of all the changes going on in my body.
He smoked at the office,his nurse smoked,and more than 1/2 of the pregnant women smoked.
We also drank tons of coffee----no decaf.
Where was the harm?
Aaaaah,She,it's not about health---it's never been about health.
They don't like the smell----period!
I did not call smokers disgusting. I called smoking disgusting. Just because I might do something disgusting does not make me disgusting.
Nor have I given any lectures on the subject since it is not worth my time to speak to deaf ears. I do not care if you smoke as long as I don't have to smell it.
That's what my regular ob said. The one I have now just asked me if I knew what the risks were, and I said "yes". Given he had my medical history (complete with my children's birth weights and date of birth-compared to due date) he knew better than to push it, I guess.
I guess it doesn't hurt that I'm not a pack-a-day smoker, either.
THAT'S a crock and you know it. Even in old movies, I can't count the times characters who smoked, asked other's when they were out in public,"Do you mind if I smoke?" I can recall all kinds of smoking adults in my life doing the same.
An it was 18 years ago when I was OUTSIDE having a cigarette and someone (who was standing no where near me, and was not the recipient of the traveling smoke from my cigarette which was blowing in the opposite direction) approached me and asked me to put it out.
NAH!!! This unreasonable anti-smoking nonsense was brewing for a long time before then and actually began when I was growing up.
justshutupandtakeit
So it's the smell----not health huh?
You just proved my point.Thanks!
LOL!
Disgusting doesn't begin to describe it.....thanks for sharing it though. I have much bigger things to protect my kids from. And that is part of what ticks me off about this whole issue. It is not (in the grand scheme of things) all that important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.