Replies

No, what pawdoggie, Bill Bennett, Antonin Scalia and thousands of other so-called FReepers and "conservatives" are saying is that the Constitution IS a living breathing document whose words mean nothing and might as well be toilet paper for members of the Supreme Court if its original intent means somebody might get a buzz (which they did until 1937). It means they don't have the honesty to propose and wait for the passage of another constitutional Prohibition Amendment. It means they are liars.

I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution. It's probably right next to the "right to porno" clause in the 1st Amendment. As to "original intent", however, I think that back in 1798 America hanging porno poster outside your house or smoking a doobie on your front porch would not have commended you to your neighbors (assuming that they let you live, of course). BTW, they didn't have any "Megan's laws" back in post-Revolutionary America, either. They never thought anyone could be so perverse.

"I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution. "

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

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.

I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution.

That is a non-sequitur. I am simply saying that the commerce clause did not confer the right to the federal government to prohibit it (except maybe on federal property, like murder). That is not to say that states may not do so. (see 9th Amendment) It does not require that something be a personal "right" in order to say it is beyond the scope of the original understanding of a FEDERAL government in which states are sovereigns and not mere administrative districts.