Posted on 07/18/2005 6:58:38 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
More correctly, the Constitution bears no stated protection of the right to consume pot. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that the U.S. Constitution grants rights. Or did you?
"He's pretty firm on limited rights and unlimited gov't."
All this time and all these posts and you still can't (won't?) get it right. I'm a big believer in states rights -- I'd like to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments.
But, in those areas where Congress has constitutionally chosen to act, I'm also a believer in the Supremacy Clause.
You're looking to the U.S. Constitution and the USSC to get what you want. As the Court itself stated, this is something that needs to be resolved at the legislative level. Problem is, you don't have the votes, and that frustrates you -- so you seek (just a little, just this once) right-wing judicial activism. Hey, it's OK when conservatives try to do that, right?
Individuals have rights, not states.
More correctly, the Constitution bears no stated protection of the right to consume pot.
Your distinction has no bearing on my contention. Neither does the Constitution contain a stated protection of a right to bear children.
The tenth amendment reads, "... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"States' rights" is the power to self-govern, the core principle of federalism. You want to nit pick, go elsewhere.
"Neither does the Constitution contain a stated protection of a right to bear children."
Does it need to? Can it not be left to interpretation? Maybe only if the courts interpret it the way laredo44 thinks they should, huh?
Do we really need a legislature, in your opinion? Can't we simply look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance? In reading your posts, one would certainly think so. I mean, the ninth amendment says we have a gazillion rights (at least), and Mr. Barnett says none of them can be infringed ... what more is there?
May I quote from Governor George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" speech?
"As Governor and Chief Magistrate of the State of Alabama I deem it to be my solemn obligation and duty to stand before you representing the rights and sovereignty of this State and its peoples."
"The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the Central Government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this State by officers of the Federal Government. This intrusion results solely from force, or threat of force, undignified by any reasonable application of the principle of law, reason and justice. It is important that the people of this State and nation understand that this action is in violation of rights reserved to the State by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. While some few may applaud these acts, millions of Americans will gaze in sorrow upon the situation existing at this great institution of learning."
"Only the Congress makes the law of the United States. To this date no statutory authority can be cited to the people of this Country which authorizes the Central Government to ignore the sovereignty of this State in an attempt to subordinate the rights of Alabama and millions of Americans. There has been no legislative action by Congress justifying this intrusion."
Is that what you were referring to? Sounds like something with which you'd agree.
" --- the Constitution bears no stated protection of the right to consume pot.
Our Constitution protects unenumerated rights to life, liberty, or property. It grants no power to governments to prohibit life, liberty, or property.
I'm a big believer in states rights -- I'd like to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. But, in those areas where Congress has constitutionally chosen to act, I'm also a believer in the Supremacy Clause.
The supremacy clause is reiterated by the 14th; officials at every level must support the Law of the Land.
You're looking to the U.S. Constitution and the USSC to get what you want. As the Court itself stated, this is something that needs to be resolved at the legislative level.
Resolved by laws that conform with the Constitution, true enough.
Problem is, you don't have the votes, and that frustrates you -- so you seek (just a little, just this once) right-wing judicial activism.
it is not "right-wing judicial activism" to demand that the USSC use a 'presumption of liberty' in constitutional deliberations.
Hey, it's OK when conservatives try to do that, right?
How amusing that you again unwittingly oppose "right-wing conservatives".
Lockyer, the same guy displaying the America in the toilet "art."
From a legal standpoint, he's probably right, but I believe California has bigger problems to fix.
What's even worse is the potheads hoping it will happen so they'll get the publicity they want.
May I quote from Governor George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" speech?
"As Governor and Chief Magistrate of the State of Alabama I deem it to be my solemn obligation and duty to stand before you representing the rights and sovereignty of this State and its peoples." "The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the Central Government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this State by officers of the Federal Government. This intrusion results solely from force, or threat of force, undignified by any reasonable application of the principle of law, reason and justice. It is important that the people of this State and nation understand that this action is in violation of rights reserved to the State by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. While some few may applaud these acts, millions of Americans will gaze in sorrow upon the situation existing at this great institution of learning." "Only the Congress makes the law of the United States. To this date no statutory authority can be cited to the people of this Country which authorizes the Central Government to ignore the sovereignty of this State in an attempt to subordinate the rights of Alabama and millions of Americans. There has been no legislative action by Congress justifying this intrusion."
Is that what you were referring to? Sounds like something with which you'd agree.
And you:
The tenth amendment reads, "... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"States' rights" is the power to self-govern, the core principle of federalism. You want to nit pick, go elsewhere.
These people from CA should be arrested right now.
First of all, the U.S. Constitution specifically enumerates life and liberty and property as protected rights. Second, the government certainly has the power to prohibit any of these with due process.
It's all right there in the fifth amendment.
"The supremacy clause is reiterated by the 14th"
Therefore the 14th is redundant.
"... it is not "right-wing judicial activism" to demand that the USSC use a 'presumption of liberty' in constitutional deliberations"
I was referring to Randy Barnett's book. It that what he proposes -- that the USSC use a 'presumption of liberty' in constitutional deliberations?
"How amusing that you again unwittingly oppose "right-wing conservatives".
Hah! Pretty pathetic when you have to twist my words to make a point.
I oppose the use of judicial activism as a means to an end, whether it is attempted by left-wing liberals or by right-wing conservatives. Is judicial activism OK when attempted by conservatives? I would like an answer to that.
So you react with righteous bull$hit indignation and call for totalitarian abuse. Absolutely typical.
I'm consistent -- you're hypocritical.
Once its use is not "in your face", the feds will back off. In my opinion.
It is bull$hit. Name one, just one, other area where an activity is legal by state law but illegal at the federal level?
Totalitarian abuse? Nah, just charge the bastards with sedition and remove them from office.
First of all, the U.S. Constitution specifically enumerates life and liberty and property as protected rights.
How droll; -- our rights to life, liberty, or property cover all unenumerated rights.
Second, the government certainly has the power to prohibit any of these with due process.
You're nit-picking.
It's all right there in the fifth amendment.
And in the 14th, it's more specific.
The supremacy clause is reiterated by the 14th
Therefore the 14th is redundant.
No, its spelled out in more detail for the socialist prohibitionists among us who claim that States can ignore individual rights.
... it is not "right-wing judicial activism" to demand that the USSC use a 'presumption of liberty' in constitutional deliberations.
I was referring to Randy Barnett's book. Is that what he proposes -- that the USSC use a 'presumption of liberty' in constitutional deliberations?
Yes.
How amusing that you again unwittingly oppose "right-wing conservatives.
Hah! Pretty pathetic when you have to twist my words to make a point.
Anyone here can read your twisted words to see that I did not twist them.
I oppose the use of judicial activism as a means to an end, whether it is attempted by left-wing liberals or by right-wing conservatives. Is judicial activism OK when attempted by conservatives? I would like an answer to that.
Already answered; --- it is not "right-wing judicial activism" to demand that the USSC use a 'presumption of liberty' in constitutional deliberations.
--- Try to keep up.
Hopefully there will be jury nullification like what happened in the first failed prohibition.
If I ever end up on one of these juries you can be assured of it in that case.
Name one, just one, other area where an activity is legal by state law but illegal at the federal level? Owning unlicensed full auto weapons? I understand a few states follow the Constitution and have never made them 'illegal'.
Name one, just one, other area where an activity is legal by state law but illegal at the federal level?
Owning unlicensed full auto weapons? I understand a few states follow the Constitution and have never made them 'illegal'.
Well then, there's no need for the ninth amendment, is there? The fifth amendment says it all.
"You're nit-picking."
Nit picking? Due Process plays a fundamental role when it comes to our rights. You stated, as fact, that the Constitution "grants no power to governments to prohibit life, liberty, or property."
That is incorrect, and it's not "nit-picking" to point out this basic misconconception of yours that our rights cannot be prohibited by the government.
"No, its spelled out in more detail for the socialist prohibitionists among us who claim that States can ignore individual rights."
Well, there goes federalism right out the window. One size fits all. The federal government knows best. Five justices on the USSC interpret the meaning of all protected rights.
Riddle me this: Why do states have state constitutions? Ever think about that? Ever wonder about that? Aren't they unnecessary, in your opinion?
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.