The first time you posted it, I answered in essentially the same way. It took a dozen more times for you to finally admit you saw the truth. - Congrats yourself.
You're advocating the power of officials to enact & enforce unconstitutional prohibitions.
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've advocated that the People through their representives and representative's appointments decide what is and isn't constitutional by making the decision of what does and does not present harm.
-- No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; -- Constitutional law; - and no matter which way you phrase it; - such prohibitions are infringements.
And although it isn't a perfect system, its better than all of the alternatives.
Our system for protecting liberty is being ignored by fed/state/local officials, and you advocate that "-- the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc. --".
Your beef with the People concerning pot is that they don't agree with you about the harm done to others. That's fine, use your free speech to try to change their minds (hopefully you can perfect a non-irritating style).
It's pretty hard not to be irritated by prohibitionists like you kid, but I try..
Just don't destroy the system by deciding that because on this issue when you aren't in the majority on the "judgment of harm", that you have to find a way to force everyone else to accept your judgment.
The "way" has been found.. The 'rule of constitutional law' must be enforced, despite what you majority rule prohibitionists say.
MAJORITY RULE
Excerpts From Speech By Senator James A. Reed Of Missouri
(U.S. Senate, June 4, 1926)
I am getting a little tired of hearing about the sacred rights of the majority; that this is a country ruled by the majority; and that the majority has the right to have its way.
This is not a country ruled by the majority.
This is not a country of majority rule.
The Constitution of the United States was written, in large part, to prevent majority rule. The Declaration of Independence was an announcement that there are limitations upon majority rule.
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were declared in the Declaration to be inalienable rights.
They could not be given away by the citizen himself. Much less could they be taken away by temporary agents, sitting in legislative bodies, holding a limited authority of brief duration.
The Constitution itself is a direct limitation upon majority rule.
"You shall not take property without due process of law," says the Constitution, and before we can take that safeguard away what must we do? We must obtain not a majority by this body, not a majority of the House of Representatives," but a two-thirds majority in each House concurring in a resolution, and that resolution must be approved by three fourths of the States.
What about majority rule in connection with that proposition?
The right to trial by jury can not be taken away by majority rule. The right for the habitation of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures can not be taken away by majority rule.
If it could have been so taken away, Volstead and his like would have invaded every home of America and fanaticism would have thrust its ugly face into every home of this land...
Before you can trample upon certain rights of the American people you must have more than a majority, Sir, and I believe it to be true that there are certain rights which even by amending the Constitution of the United States, we can not take away from the citizens of the United States.
Majority rule!
Where is the logic or the reason to be found back of majority rule except in the mere necessity to dispatch business?
The fact that a majority of 1 or 10 vote for a bill in the Senate is not a certification that the action is right.
The majority has been wrong oftener than it has been right in all the course of time. The majority crucified Jesus Christ. The majority burned the Christians at the stake. The majority drove the Jews into exile and the ghetto. The majority established slavery. The majority set up innumerable gibbets. The majority chained to stakes and surrounded with circles of flame martyrs through all the ages of the world's history. The majority in China believe in a doctrine and follow a code of ethics different from ours. Either they are wrong or we are wrong. The majority in India follow a different code of ethics and have a different set of ideas than we, and they far out number us. Either they are wrong or we are wrong.
The majority went down the pathway of the ages wearing gyves, which they voluntarily forged and fastened upon their arms; and when a minority arose headed by some brave soul, they hanged him upon a gibbet, they crucified him upon a cross, they pulled his limbs apart with horrible instruments of torture, and the majority stood there leering and jibing at the man who was the apostle of a better day.
Majority rule without any limitation or curb upon the particular set of fools who happen to be placed for the moment in charge of the machinery of a government!
The majority grinned and jeered when Columbus said the world was round. The majority threw him into a dungeon for having discovered a new world.
The majority said that Galileo must recant or that Galileo must go to prison. The majority cut off the ears of John Pym because he dared advocate the liberty of the press.
The majority to the South of the Mason and Dixon line established the horrible thing called slavery, and the majority north of it did likewise, and only turned reformer when slavery ceased to be profitable to them.
Majority rule!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biographical Note
James Alexander Reed (1861 - 1944), was born in Ohio; but after a brief sojourn in Iowa, settled in Kansas City, Missouri in the 1880s. At the turn of the Century, he was the Prosecuting Attorney in Kansas City, where he obtained 285 convictions in the 287 cases that he tried. From 1911 until his retirement in 1929, he served as a Democratic Senator from Missouri. The one political figure of that era, whom the usually cynical H. L. Mencken actually idolized, Reed opposed virtually every bit of wishful thinking, "do-gooder" legislation of his time; and was the first man in either party to openly oppose the League of Nations. In the 1920s he was the most outspoken foe of Prohibition in the Congress. On the other hand, he strongly favored Naval preparedness; and as an exercise in analytic reasoning in 1922, outlined the course of the Japanese attacks on our Pacific positions over 19 years later. There has been no more effective Conservative voice in this Century.
While too long for an internet posting, any of Reed's major Senate addresses on Foreign Policy, Military Preparedness, Prohibition, or the fallacy of trying to solve human problems by creating a more intrusive Federal Government, will reward the reader with both the insight and technique to deal with the present more effectively
Majority Rule!--America is not a country of Majority Rule.
Address:http://pages.prodigy.com/RETURN/Reed.htm
You have constant problem with stating facts not in evidence. I think you do this on purpose, so I'm disinclined to post the history of the planet, as you do, in order to show it. It's enough to say that you have said that the Peoples representatives must decide what is harmful and what isn't (of which we agree). Therein they have the capacity to decide that pot is harmful to others. They may be wrong, but there is no other way to make that decision, other than for you to appoint yourself king. Again, I'm not inclined to allow that.
It's pretty hard not to be irritated by prohibitionists like you kid, but I try..
Wow pops, you must be what 104? Perhaps you're senile? You're certainly crotchety, and I'm guessing that's the main attribute that will prevent you from getting any converts.
There are several ways to argue.
1. Shout people down.
- At the right time and place this may be useful, but never for winning the person shouted down as a convert.
2. Repeating the same line over and over. Pausing to plan the next attack, but not to listen. Never answering questions or hypothetically (they're only traps and straw men), but returning to the same tired line, over and over and over.
- This is a purely defensive mindset that makes the person happy at the end of the day that they themselves have not been persuaded. It is seen most in old men at the end of bars, who have their one thought and their pride is sticking to it. This too is a loser in persuading people.
3. Put out your idea. Invite genuine controversy. Be eager to answer questions. The more times you are asked the better, its an opportunity to give another example, another analogy, another hypothetical, that will persuade the other side. Ask your own challenging questions and listen to the answers. Hypotheticals are good because they draw on the objective and move away from the passion. Don't be too proud to concede ground, if its for intellectually valid reasons, even if its just to acknowledge that the other person is genuine (assuming they are). 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.
Now the styles above have nothing to do with being right or wrong, although with #3 it helps. Many people who are right are stuck in number 1 or 2. You my friend are stuck on #2. I realize what you think of me, but I'm giving you the best advice I can and opening myself to your ridicule for it. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
You have a lot of knowledge, and I like your passion for freedom, but I wouldn't want you on my side of an argument because you are bad at it, and drive people away. You're stuck on transmit.
For example, although 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 are locked into the logic that anyone that disagrees with you on any facet of your argument is out to get you and an enemy of the Constitution.
I have legitimate concerns about regulating antibiotics and such, but I'd frankly like to see a few states legalize pot (and not half measures like legalizing possession of 1 ounce), but full blown legalization. That would give the country a chance to see how it works and adjust their views one way or another on the "harm" question.
Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist. You have never stopped to address the perils of your own logic concerning overturning the People via judicial means.
Is it bad when the People make a bad decision concerning harm? Yes. But any alternative beyond changing the viewpoint of the people is far worse. I do not want kings, demi-kings, or king makers deciding for us, what is best for us. We do it best, even when we don't get it right the first time.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment requiring that every law must also state the harm done to others would be agreeable to you? I know you are insistent that it shouldn't be required, but neither should the Bill or Rights be required. However, its been most helpful.