Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PaxMacian
DEAmen in black armor and masked in mystery wage a terror campaign upon the citizenry and you sit on the sidelines and cheer them on because they are protecting citizens from themselves?

I do? Fascinating imagination you have, almost as fascinating as your religious belief that smoking pot is a central tenant of Christianity. Do you hold other tenants or is that it? Well never mind, the point is that your religious zeal, clouded your ability to understand my posts.

My point, once again, is that the People must be the ones that decide the Constitutionality (based on harm to others) of any given law. They must do this through their representatives using due process, and if you don't agree with their judgment, its your right and obligation to make a logical argument to sway minds.

I said:
"...an esocteric world where the Constitution is a god that lords over the people down to the most minute detail without the need for the involvement of human minds or hands. Because in your happy world, these people who cannot be trusted to decide if a vice does them harm, are protected from themselves by.... well apparently by you alone deciding what your god says."

Let me restate this for you, as you are confused as to my point. The Constitution is not animate. It is a contract, not a devine creature. It cannot enforce itself. Thus, even if people agree not to prohibit behavior that is not harmful to others (which is what I assert the Constitution says), the Constitution is not at all definitive on what constitutes harm to others. It certainly can't leap out of its case and pass judgment. No doubt you think that you are just the one to do it, but 299,999,999 others may disagree.

Let me give you an example. Person "A" likes to have sex with a pig in his front yard every day. Person "B" seeks a law to prohibit that behavior.

B's argument is that its repugnant, makes her ill, and traumatizes her children. She shouldn't have to cover her eyes when outside, and it makes her property less desirable and thus less valuable. A's argument is that he's not hurting anyone directly, the pig likes it, and no one is being forced to watch.

There are any number of actions the People could take, and I'm not inclined to consider it the end of the Republic if they decide that banging a pig in public constitutes harm to others.

I trust no other, particularly heretical fools, to determine what is good for me to ingest.

Who are you to judge what is heretical? Why are you better than the next to decide what is harmful to others? Why is it that I never hear such passion about the abridgement of enumerated rights like speech, that I hear about pot smoking?

The last is the curious one to me. These arguments for pot smoking are so stoked up on rights, but when I look at the posting histories of those that are so impassioned, I see that not many of them are too concerned about encroachments on other far more important enumerated rights.

Making pot smoking legal (best of luck with that) will in no way help to protect our First, Second, or Fifth Amendment rights. It just doesn't work that way. In fact, if its done through screwed up constitutional process, vice repeal, it could spell disaster for all of our rights. My time and energy will be spent protecting our enumerated rights that are absolutely under attack, not trying to force the People to accept that they aren't competent to decide when an unenumerated right causes harm to others. I'm not willing to turn it over to a good king (read judge).

223 posted on 10/27/2006 1:57:29 PM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]


To: SampleMan

Rights are not enumerated, rights are God given and protected by the Constitution.
Powers of the Federal Government are enumerated in the Constitution as
limits to its power over the people. Controlling dietary intake is not an enumerated power!


226 posted on 10/27/2006 2:20:08 PM PDT by PaxMacian (Gen 1:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

To: SampleMan
"Who are you to judge what is heretical? Why are you better than the next to decide what is harmful to others?"

Certainly better than you if you haven't a grasp of history
which includes the Manichaean Heresy regarding good and evil.
This herb is demonized yet it is a simple fact that no thing
is evil for evil has no substance. No man is evil for all
may be redeemed if penitent.
Why are you better than the next to decide what is harmful to others?

Ro 14:14
I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but
that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

No man is deserving of the wrath of DEAmen conjured
by corporate pawns seeking to maintain the efficiency of
their chattel through selectively staged terror campaigns
against possessors, propagators and protectors of a gift from
the garden of God. Cheer your DEAmen on, if you must.
But, know that you do not do so with the grace of God.
Peace be with you!

235 posted on 10/27/2006 4:53:28 PM PDT by PaxMacian (Gen 1:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson