Posted on 10/23/2006 5:03:34 PM PDT by JTN
Sweet dreams.
I've never advocated any such thing.
Belied by your post #158:
"-- I'm still missing your point. Mine is that the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc."
158 posted on 10/25/2006 5:17:04 AM PDT by SampleMan
I'm advocating that the federal government has overreached and that the People of the states should decide the law,
to you I am a prohibitionist. Why?
Because you insist that the citizens of the states effected have "the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc." -- Thats why.
Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist.
This is the MOST persuasive form of argument.
In the last 20 years, I've brought easily over 100 people to the conservative mind set with it, and I'm not a social guy.
Having every level of gov't in the USA ignoring the constitution is far worse than just "Having a disagreement", imo..
Majority rule prohibitionists are indeed enemies of our rule of constitutional law, just as Senator Reed put it nearly 80 years ago.
--- Our prohibitionary 'wars' against drugs, guns, vice, etc - are tearing this country apart.
Who is your divine being that is always right, that knows when everyone else is wrong about "harm", but that you are right? If you have God there with you, willing to make these judgments in the stead of the Republic, I'm ready to turn it over to Him. If its someone with a law degree, I'm not.
Quite the disjointed response. There's a few words sprinkled in that relate to our "disagreement", granted, -- but the rest is gibberish.
Your continual charges of "majority rule" are disingenuous. I've never advocated that the People ignore the Constitution, just that they are the only entity that should be administering it.
You insist that the citizens of the states effected have "the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc." -- That's advocating a 'majority rule' authority.
Are you advocating minority rule, in that you would have a minority of the pure overrule the judgment of the People ?
No, I'm advocating that our constitutions rule of law be supported by the People. - Prohibitions violate due process & our rule of law.
Sadly, I wasted my last post on you.
Too bad, -- but your style of preaching doesn't do a thing for me.
That's a shame, a real shame, and not for me.
Well, it's a shame you need to think I'm shamed, that's for sure.
"If it said what you'd like it to say, only Treason would be a crime."
Not quite. Treason, piracy and counterfeiting are the only crimes where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has jurisdiction (outside federal military enclaves, where Congress does have authority to regulate the conduct of the armed services, as it does using the Uniform Code of Military Justice). All other crime is then dealt with by the States and the local authorities.
"You've concurred that not every action is a right, so list your criteria for an unenumerated right, and back that up with the Constitution please."
A RIGHT is anything you, as an individual, can do BY YOURSELF or with likeminded others who are capable of giving voluntary consent to whatever it is you are doing, with outside individuals having only the responsibility to leave you alone to exercise that right or perform that activity. Rights do not include activities which would require the INVOLUNTARY participation of others (such as rape or incest/child molestation or welfare or "free" medical care or similar things).
Premier among rights is the right to ownership of your own life, the right to own and control your life, your body and your justly-acquired property.
Society MAY hold that certain activities are not appropriate IN PUBLIC, and government may enforce that. However, what you do in private, consistent with what I stated earlier, is your own business, period.
I hold that the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is sufficient to prove my thesis here.
No, because their are inconsiderate a-holes like you who wouldn't think twice about putting others in danger because of chemically impaired judgment.
Carolyn
Let's look at drunk driving. Is it an uninfringable right? Some here have said "yes" in the past. They argue that being drunk while driving doesn't hurt anyone, only crashing into them does, and there are already laws against that. If this is how you look at "harm" then pot would be an uninfringable right. Some are attracted to this approach because it allows no judgment of harm until the egg is broken.
I don't concur with this, as I don't think the concept and an orderly society can coexist. It also assumes that the People are too stupid to recognize harm before it kills them. I believe that willful endangerment with a high probability of harm, is harm. Like juggling chainsaws over the heads of toddlers or building a nuclear reactor without safety backups.
I think the limit set by the People on drinking and driving, .08, is below my level of impairment, but I know it is above others. However, I accept it as Constitutional.
Do you believe that actions of willful endangerment can be restricted?
You're doing a bit of parsing on my posts. In context, you aren't correcting anything. My point was that the Constitution does not disallow the the states from passing laws not listed in the constitution that restrict life and liberty, as the punishments for crime do. Crime is based on harm to others. And what is and who defines "harm" is my point.
Please do me the justice of not parsing my posts out of context. I'm being as fair with you as I can, and I'd appreciate the same from you.
You are stuck on #2. Do you actually need a forum? You could just mumble to yourself and get the same results.
If not them who?
"A wise man ought to realize that health
is the most valuable possession and learn
how to treat his illnesses by his own judgement.
Hippocrates - A regimen for Health circa 500 B.C.
Paramount to individuality, one's own judgement regarding sustenance and the substantial composition of physique
is a natural or God given right.
I don't believe you have answered any questions yet. Like tpaine, you are stuck in transmit mode.
You also have an inability to state your case forthwith. However, I think I get your point. You don't believe that anything that we can consume should be regulated. Bald Eagle is on the menu. The restriction of antibiotics, a requirement of keeping them at all effective, is unconstitutional. And impairment in public is a personal issue, unless someone is actually hurt (the its OK to do 120mph through a school zone, as long as no kids are hit argument).
Got it. Very few People share your definitions of "harm". As you have no kingly power to force everyone else to accept your views, and an inability to engage in constructive dialogue to change minds, you have a problem that isn't going to be rectified. I hope that you can find some other happiness in your life. You seem to have a knack for the obscure, self-absorbed, important sounding, but ultimately hollow statement. Perhaps a career at NPR awaits you.
I've never said otherwise. I've made that quite clear. But one person or a minority of people demanding that no harm is done, doesn't make it true. There is a minority of people who think that five should be the age of consent, and that no harm is done.
What is and who decides "harm" is my point. If the People are too stupid or dangerous to be given that power, then who should decide in their place, and why are they more qualified?
I think all alternatives to the People are quite dangerous and unacceptable.
If a law is passed and the backer's say, "No harm is done, but we don't like it." You have a Constitutional argument. If you simply don't agree about the harm done (going 120mph in a school zone) then you have failed to win in the arena of ideas.
As there will always be a minority to say that no harm is done, even in cases such as rape and pedophilia, how do you propose to ensure that the People always make perfect decisions?
The four of you continue to avoid the issue of harm and insist as a foregone conclussion that no harm is done. It is not a foregone conclussion, as most people disagree with you and think that harm is done. But instead of arguing that point, you want to create a system where you don't have to debate and get to force your will on others.
Your view is that of a socialist democrat with no comprehension of the
Constitutional Republic that is our nation. Your idea of 'the people' centers
on some non-existent democratic majority, unless you count polls and trust
them to rule. Natural or God given rights are not at the whim of the majority
to deny to each individual making up the people.
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.
You accuse me of hyperbole when you compare rape and pedophilia to
the possession of a gift from God?
Obviously, smoking any substance is, just as drinking or eating any substance, - an unenumerated right under the 9th Amendment. -- A right that can be 'reasonably regulated' by State & local gov'ts, -- but not outright prohibited.
Sampleman objects:
You've concurred that not every action is a right, so list your criteria for an unenumerated right, and back that up with the Constitution please."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dcwusmc replies:
A RIGHT is anything you, as an individual, can do BY YOURSELF or with likeminded others who are capable of giving voluntary consent to whatever it is you are doing, with outside individuals having only the responsibility to leave you alone to exercise that right or perform that activity.
Rights do not include activities which would require the INVOLUNTARY participation of others (such as rape or incest/child molestation or welfare or "free" medical care or similar things).
Premier among rights is the right to ownership of your own life, the right to own and control your life, your body and your justly-acquired property.
Society MAY hold that certain activities are not appropriate IN PUBLIC, and government may enforce that. However, what you do in private, consistent with what I stated earlier, is your own business, period.
I hold that the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is sufficient to prove my thesis here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sampleman retorts:
As I had explained myself on rights multiple times, I assumed it was clear that with the term "right" I meant an "uninfringable right".
Let's look at drunk driving. Is it an uninfringable right? -- Some are attracted to this approach because it allows no judgment of harm until the egg is broken.
I don't concur with this, as I don't think the concept and an orderly society can coexist. It also assumes that the People are too stupid to recognize harm before it kills them.
I believe that willful endangerment with a high probability of harm, is harm.
I think the limit set by the People on drinking and driving, .08, is below my level of impairment, but I know it is above others. However, I accept it as Constitutional.
Do you believe that actions of willful endangerment can be restricted?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I said initially, and as dcwusmc just wrote; -- Society MAY hold that certain activities are not appropriate IN PUBLIC, and government may enforce that.
However, what you do in private, consistent with what I stated earlier, is your own business, period.
You are attempting to prove your prohibitionary points with 'DUI willful endangerment restrictictions' -- which are public behaviors that we ALL agree can be reasonably regulated.
Would it be too much to ask you to address the constitutional points made by dcwusmc? -- Could you do it directly & in detail?
-- I'm beginning to doubt you have the ability.
Perhaps I can explain it better this way:
A close reading of the Constitution and the Founders' other writings (including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) gives me the understanding that the Constitution in essence gives the government no more authority to act than we as individuals possess. We, as individuals, may properly set rules for ourselves and our families, even complete with punishments for those who break those rules. We may properly defend ourselves and our families and property with whatever amount of force we consider needful, even deadly force. We have also banded together to establish a COMMON defense, through the Constitution.
However, we cannot give any government one whit of authority which we, ourselves, may not legitimately exercise. We cannot, for example, give government the LEGITIMATE authority to ban or prohibit voluntary behaviors of others when done privately. We, as individuals, do have the proper and legitimate authority to act when something is done in public which could have a negative impact on ourselves or others and we can properly delegate this authority to government. We can even act when something is done by another IN PRIVATE when we have very good grounds to believe that it involves the INVOLUNTARY participation of another person, as for example a rape or attempted murder. This authority we can also delegate.
We can delegate no other authority to government, as it is NOT OURS TO GIVE. Sadly, FedGov and the Several States have taken on powers they were prohibited from exercising and we have not stopped them. Some folks, even here on FR, actually cheer on government for so vastly exceeding its proper and legitimate authority. I suspect you are not one of those, but you do seem to have some sort of majoritarian tendencies which need to be curbed.
Actually, you are 100% wrong, which, I have noticed, is not an unusual condition for you. All of my other posts postulate that society can, through government, regulate certain PUBLIC behaviors which are known to present a danger to others. You, however, like altogether too many alleged "conservatives," want to do the jackboot stomp into PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY activities which are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. This, I submit, is because you are a control-freakazoid, authoritarian busybody.
But drugged and drunk driving are just a jim-dandy, a-ok, good time deal for you? Drugged and drunk idiots in the workplace are just fine? Drugged and drunk perverts at the public schools teaching the leftist, anti-America, homosexual agenda is just fine?
You, however, like altogether too many alleged "conservatives," ...
I am not a "conservative," and never once said I was.
The druggies, like the sex perverts, can only perpetuate an an ever increasing market for their filth by molesting the minds and bodies of the young ones.
If that opinion makes me a jack-booted thug, fine - I was trained for it at Ord, Benning, Campbell, Lewis, and Roberts, Mr. Bootcamp...
"But drugged and drunk driving are just a jim-dandy, a-ok, good time deal for you? Drugged and drunk idiots in the workplace are just fine? Drugged and drunk perverts at the public schools teaching the leftist, anti-America, homosexual agenda is just fine?"
Let me see, driving normally takes place in a public arena; work, as a rule is on someone else's PRIVATE property and if we disestablish the so-called "public skools," it would be a major blessing. So have I left out any of your barbra striesand "response?" No. So now what were you babbling about? Public arenas, such as roads and schools, are covered by what I posted, you know, the part about "...society can, through government, regulate certain PUBLIC behaviors which are known to present a danger to others." In the case of PRIVATE workplaces, the OWNER'S RULES APPLY. Does that yet sink in? Or is yours the same "skull full of mush" that college professors and public skool "teachers" are so eager to fill with bull-bleep?
And as for your "training," color me less than impressed.
And that's where the dopers usually have their car wrecks.
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.