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.
LOL...not PC, but correct. My mom (a smoker herself, btw) has a bad reaction (they're not sure if it's an allergy, yet) to perfumes of all kinds. The stuff in soaps, candles, regular perfume...you name it. She doesn't expect everyone to accomodate her, by any means. Might help that she's a smoker, though! :)
I wonder when she's gonna give it up and come over to the dark side. She's more than halfway there, but she doesn't realize it, lol!!
I am glad to see work being done on new arguments to stop the smoking bans. The old ones regarding private property just don't work.
You are right. Now that they are going into private businesses, with their eyes on our own homes and cars....enough. I remember Dennis Prager one day saying that "health" is the new morals. That means: abortion? Fine! S&M conventions at family venues? Okay! Gay Days at Disneyworld? Nothing wrong with that! How-to sex ed in school? Why not!
SMOKE??? You idiot, scum, heathen, selfish, immoral piece of.....
That's putting it mildly.
I believe it was either CG or CSM or a collaboration of those 2 that came up with the term "convenient conservative".....which means the same thing as your "pick and choose" and navy chick and my "HTT" (holier than thou)
It's amazing how often they are all the same - regardless of the topic of a thread
# 184
ROTFL!!!!
Amazing isn't it?
I agree. I am having a hard time articulating my thoughts. I have, for years, called it a red herring. But you are correct, it is a vehicle for socialism.
What is the defintion of insanity again ?
Amazing isn't it?<<
Yes, it is. I wish I remember his (Dennis Prager's) exact diatribe...it was some time ago and it was a bullseye.
We appear to be.
Even my very first post questioned the idea on speech.......but not assembly on private property.
I do not know who said it, and I am just paraphrasing here........but he who controls the language controls the arguement.
In the case of smoking bans, a rather small, but VERY well funded (Soros-style) group has been able to convince many that a private place of business that invites a segment of the populace to utilize its services is a PUBLIC place. These people have usurped the language and believe they have the right to enter any private business and demand its services be to their liking.
That is wrong, and I can't believe how many people, calling themselves conservatives, have fallen for it.
It's ALF and their own press release........I take it with the grain of salt and lack of brains with which it was written.
If I had a taxpayer funded budget like all of the anti-orgs have.....I could show how much they are lying........but no one wants to grant me even 1 percent of the budgets of them.
And heaven forbid I issue a press release against it on my own. I would immediately be slammed by every anti-smoker org as some tobacco industry flack because the MSM would call them to get quotes.
Something the MSM rarely, if ever does when it comes to the press releases of the antis.
This is just speculation, but I think a large part of that attitude also comes from "the customer is always right". FWIW. I don't think that the customer IS always right, however. Just because you are a guest doesn't mean you can behave any old way you want to...hence all those "No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service" and "We reserve the right to refuse service...blah blah blah" signs. People forget that- while they are out of their homes- it doesn't necessarily translate into being in a public space.
I love that pic because it is exactly right. I remember years ago a friend telling me that her kids school had a whole program encouraging "narc on your parents".
Funny, isn't it, how we're supposed to buy that anti-smoking studies aren't biased while simultaneously believing that tobacco companies ARE. Whoever commissions the study usually has an agenda...even the government.
A simple concept that flies right over the head of the nanny staters, apparently. So simple, it's complicated. *rolling eyes*
Whatever happened to the concept of liberty in this country? When did government become our mommy and daddy and adult citizens become children incapable of governing themselves? These bans are pure fascism.
And I don't even smoke.
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.