Posted on 02/16/2005 10:37:03 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Justices are often unwilling to make unpopular decisions, even if those decisions are in support of the Constitution. Remember, justices have also ruled slavery legal and that the Second Amendment does not apply to the individual's right to keep and bear weapons. Justices that make unconstitutional decisions should be immediately impeached. Keeping people off drugs is not worth our Bill of Rights.
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas
Works for me!
I see you studied at the Stalin-Orwell School, because "freedom" to you means killing, exiling, censoring or re-educating people who voice opinions different from your own.
Incidentally, I'm sure Sarah Brady imagines a country free of gun nuts. You and she probably have a lot in common.
Justice Clarence Thomas has obviously been kidnapped by loserdopian book-readers!
I'm still waiting for him to post.
Why don't we talk about you, eh? Rather than hide behind others, why can't you defend your strange obession with seeing drugs legalized, kids with free access to dope and drug pushers on every street corner.
You don't seriously consider the pro-drug faction here conseravative?
Don't worry . . . bones. You can still have your Viagra.
Yes, let's beg the question and change the subject. That'll fix it.
Just who would the "pro-drug faction" be?
Not enough information to tell - however, we do know conclusively that the pro-WOD posters are not conservative, but utopian progressives, bent on 'improving' the race.
And we know where that goes - genocide, always genocide.
You choose your ideological bed-fellows remarkably unwisely!
I simply want to end the Federal Drug War and have each individual state decide on the legality of drugs. If this were to happen, I would personally prefer that pot be legalized in my state but nothing harder.
kids with free access to dope
Unlike you Arnold moderates, I find socialized medicine to be repulsive.and drug pushers on every street corner.
As I said, I would not like for anyhing harder than pot to be legal. The number of dealers of hard drugs would not be affected.
With that said, do you still consider me to be a pro-druggie? Also, being that I took the time to answer your queries, would you mind answering mine about JimRob? Is he a pro-druggie?
Many FReepers don't consider the pro-Arnold faction to be all that conservative.
I've never seen so many logical fallacies packed into 1 paragraph: 2 ad homenim attacks and 2 strawman arguments:
Ad homenim 1: 'Why don't we talk about you, eh? Rather than hide behind others,'
No, why can't you debate the issue, instead of implying that the opposition is cowardly?
Ad homenim 2: 'your strange obession with seeing drugs legalized'
Not an 'obsession' at all, but a policy stance. Care to advance an argument to support your policy? Oh wait, it's keeping the WOD status-quo. Kinda like the DemocRATs about Social Security.
Strawman 1: 'kids with free access to dope'
Oh come on, this is so stupid it's laughable. Hello, genius - it's black marketeers that give kids access to dope. For someone who wants Clinton to Be Gone, you sure sound a hell of lot like him: "for the chillrun", doncha know.
Strawman 2: 'drug pushers on every street corner'
Do alcohol and tobacco vendors sell their wares on street corners? Uhhh, no. Nor do they shoot each other over 'turf' either: they apply for a license and legally acquire their inventory and place of business. Legalizing will get the pushers off the street corners and greatly reduce the violence that plagues the inner cities.
It never ceases to amaze just how much you Drug Warriors sound exactly like the 'liberals' (socialists) that you love to criticize. Like a 'liberal', your side is all about FEEEELings and you judge yourselves not on results but good inTENNNNtions. If you cared a hoot about really solving the real problems that we have with drug abuse in America, you'd at least acknowledge that your side has FAILED and FAILED MISERABLY and you'd at least consider an alternative.
But reformers are 'mentally ill', right? Let's round them up and re-educate them. Oh, what the hell - just shoot 'em.
CBG B G.
what criterea do we use to determine which ones should be illegal?
Excellent post.
I detest corrupt officials. The penalties for govt officials who break law should be double that it is for everyone else.
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.