Posted on 02/13/2005 11:35:17 AM PST by kennedy
Red herring. Who said anything about Congressional testimony?
Dave's not here!!!
How is calling for an enforcement of Constiutional limits on federal power not 'working within the system'?
Arrested? Possibly. But I doubt the charge would be for possession -- the judge just might ask for the evidence and the cops are going to look a little silly, yes?
I'm not an advocate. I simply said the state has the power to regulate/prohibit guns PROVIDED it wasn't against the state constitution. I stand by that.
"Moral majority rule is not the american way, paulsen."
No it is not. We live in a representative republic whereby our constitutionally elected representatives write the rules. Most of these "rules" have a basis in morality.
Yup. Seems like I'm the lone voice. Kinda miss my support group.
Only in the sense that their decision is the law of the land, yes.
Doesn't the prosecution have to produce the evidence in a court of law? Maybe they were charged with attempting to destroy evidence. Not possession.
The federal government would have to beef up the DEA to also guard against exports to other states and other countries.
And why should my federal tax dollars go to support states that legalize marijuana and have higher medical expenses?
Well yeah they do.
You legalize drugs in Arkansas, and those drugs will show up across the state border in Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Those states are entitled to government assistance in keeping out your drugs. How much will that cost? Or don't you care?
Shouldn't those states have a say? Shouldn't all the states be allowed to vote on whether to return the power to regulate drugs back to the states? As they did with alcohol and the 21st amendment?
"--- if a state official, pledged to support the US Constitution, attempts to pass state legislation contrary to federal law, why, that would be treason, would it not? Well then, you and I are in agreement.
Not really. You still advocate a States 'right' to prohibit guns, or most anything else.
Moral majority rule is not the american way, paulsen.
I'm not an advocate.
Of course you are. Every day anyone can see you here advocating the States 'power to prohibit'. Your denial is ludicrous.
I simply said the state has the power to regulate/prohibit guns PROVIDED it wasn't against the state constitution. I stand by that.
The CA State constitution has no RKBA's provision. You claim they can therefore prohibit 'assault weapons', despite the clear words of our 2nd Amendment. Again, your denial is ludicrous.
-- We live in a representative republic whereby our constitutionally elected representatives write the rules.
Agreed. -- They can 'write reasonable rules' under constitutional bounds.
Most of these "rules" have a basis in morality.
Of course they do, but they cannot infringe on our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
Your advocacy of prohibitions on guns, drugs, etc; -- infringe on those rights.
You cannot find one instance where I advocated that states prohibit guns. Not one. Your claim is ludicrous -- actually, it's a lie.
"You claim they can therefore prohibit 'assault weapons', despite the clear words of our 2nd Amendment."
Yep, California can do that. The second amendment protects you from federal infringement, not state infringement. The Ninth circuit has ruled this way in a half-dozen cases.
"Of course they do, but they cannot infringe on our individual rights to life, liberty, or property."
They can infringe on those rights as long as you are accorded due process in a court of law. Then your right to life, liberty, or property is controlled by the state.
Wow! After reading all these threads about C & C, I get the feeling this argument is between the enlightened and liteheaded. Personally, and experienced, the feds should legalize the weed and concentrate on the drugs that really wreck the lives of those to weak minded to know better.
"--- if a state official, pledged to support the US Constitution, attempts to pass state legislation contrary to federal law, why, that would be treason, would it not? Well then, you and I are in agreement.
Not really. You still advocate a States 'right' to prohibit guns, or most anything else.
Moral majority rule is not the american way, paulsen.
I'm not an advocate.
Of course you are. Every day anyone can see you here advocating the States 'power to prohibit'. Your denial is ludicrous.
You cannot find one instance where I advocated that states prohibit guns. Not one. Your claim is ludicrous -- actually, it's a lie.
Are your words just below a lie? - In them, you claim that states can prohibit guns, & ignore the 2nd.
I simply said the state has the power to regulate/prohibit guns PROVIDED it wasn't against the state constitution. I stand by that.
The CA State constitution has no RKBA's provision. You claim they can therefore prohibit 'assault weapons', despite the clear words of our 2nd Amendment. Again, your denial is ludicrous.
Yep, California can do that. The second amendment protects you from federal infringement, not state infringement. The Ninth circuit has ruled this way in a half-dozen cases.
There you go again, claiming/advocating that States can ignore the US Constitutions BOR's. - How daft.
-- We live in a representative republic whereby our constitutionally elected representatives write the rules.
Agreed. -- They can 'write reasonable rules' under constitutional bounds.
Most of these "rules" have a basis in morality.
Of course they do, but they cannot infringe on our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
They can infringe on those rights as long as you are accorded due process in a court of law. Then your right to life, liberty, or property is controlled by the state.
Again, -- you claim/advocate that as long as we get due process in a fair trial, rights can be "controlled by the state". Ludicrous. -- "Due process of the law" is being ignored in the writing of these 'laws' that prohibit socalled 'evil property'. The State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property.
Your advocacy of prohibitions on guns, drugs, etc; -- infringe on those rights. -- And you cannot deny it.
Daft? Oh my. That's the way the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.
As a matter of fact when Madison was drafting the original constitution, he inserted a clause which would have applied some of the U.S. Constitution's BOR to the states. Is was rejected.
It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the BOR became applicable to the states. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the states with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment.
Read this and educate yourself on your constitution.
"Again, -- you claim/advocate that as long as we get due process in a fair trial, rights can be "controlled by the state". Ludicrous"
WHAT? If you are found guilty of murder in a court of law the state may take your life. Or your liberty. WTF are you babbling about that "the State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property." They sure do.
I'm expecting a more intelligent post from you the next time around. If you choose to remain ignorant on the basics, I don't have any more time to educate you.
Daft? Oh my. That's the way the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.
Yep, that's one of the daffy little mantras you run about here chanting. -- Without any constitutional basis.
As a matter of fact when Madison was drafting the original constitution, he inserted a clause which would have applied some of the U.S. Constitution's BOR to the states. Is was rejected.
It was not needed, as Art VI makes it clear that ALL of the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land.
It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the BOR became applicable to the states. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the states with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment. Read this and educate yourself on your constitution.
So you chant, intent on denying your own BOR's.. Daffy.
Again, -- you claim/advocate that as long as we get due process in a fair trial, rights can be "controlled by the state". -- Ludicrous. -- Due process of the law" is being ignored in the writing of these 'laws' that prohibit socalled 'evil property'. The State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property. Your advocacy of prohibitions on guns, drugs, etc; -- infringe on those rights. -- And you cannot deny it.
WHAT? If you are found guilty of murder in a court of law the state may take your life. Or your liberty.
Part of due process is a fair trial, -- and part is using constitutional due process in the writing of law.
WTF are you babbling about that "the State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property." They sure do.
Only under constitutional bounds. States have no power to "control" by fiat prohibitions. -- They can only 'reasonably regulate'.
I'm expecting a more intelligent post from you the next time around. If you choose to remain ignorant on the basics, I don't have any more time to educate you.
You are dreaming if you think you're 'educating' anyone here paulsen. Your rants are amusing, and you serve as a good foil, but other than that, get real.
Says who? Where do you come up with this garbage?
The states have the police power to regulate however they want, within the bounds of their state constitution.
I'm done with you on this thread. You're spouting nonsense.
The song was played at the end? of a cheech and Chong movie (up in smoke I think)
The song title is Down in east LA? (NOT their parody song born in east LA) and is sung by a group called LOS..??
I haved tried googling but can't find reference to it.
HELP
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.