Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/27/2008 8:30:14 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Exactly that... And, FYI, smokable opium was strictly a Chinese relaxation. No one else used it that way. Opium mixed in elixirs and what not was exempt from the law. But boy did those chinese debauch our white women... just as black jazz musicians did in the 1930s when Harry Anslinger was trying to get hemp outlawed. Kinda makes a body feel real proud of our government over its history... both state and federal.
According to Lurker’s post I may be less than correct here. Others MAY have used smokable opium. Which does not negate the rest of the info.
Yes it has.
Same tactics were used to get a ban on marijuana in the 1930s, except that time the target was blacks, not Chinese.
The only time I recall “notwithstanding” being invoked, it was done by the Quebec legislature to preserve the language laws.
I think it has been used a couple of times in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Ontario hasn’t used it because no one in the Doofus’s government can figure it out, or spell it.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Contrary to providing historical documentation that the Feds had no authority you cite instances where Congress HAD been involved to a major extent and had Constitutionoal authority for specific reasons.
The Feds would have never become involved at all if it were not for the severity of opium usage.At the time the number of users was close to 250,000 in a population of 76 million.
For that reason and the Hague Convention, the Harrison Act became law and was eventually upheld by the USSC, based on the fact the law originated with a foreign treaty which under Article VI, gave it authority over the X Amendment.
It’s just as well that Ontario hasn’t used it. The thought of McDoofus having the power to revoke Charter rights is scary.
So you're in favor of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg view of the Constitution then. Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
You might want to google up a little thing called "the Supremacy Clause". Then look into Seery v United States and Reid v Covert.
L
You`re getting lost. I`m in favor of Article VI :
“...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...”
R v C and S. v USA were specific in regards to an executive agreement and not a treaty. You`re regurgitating pages right from lp.org.
Comparing overly ambitious executive agreements, properly struck down, with the Hague treaty is an attempt at legal equivalence much in the same manner leftists attempt to argue moral equivalence, it is never successful.
Well then you and I have a fundamental disagreement. You appear to be willing to allow 'treaties' to supercede the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's something I'm, shall we say, unwilling to do.
Under your interpretation of things, Congress and the President could sing and ratifiy a Treaty which abrogated the entire Bill of Rights.
If that's the interpretation of the Constitution you're willing to live with.....well best of luck to you my friend. The way you look at things, President Obama could sing a Treaty with Cuba disavowing the 2nd Amendment.
So it appears that you and I have some very fundamental disagreements. Your worldview posits that Congress can destroy any of the Constitutional Rights enumerated in the BOR if they ratify some stupid treaty.
I say that's untrue.
L
That is the exact same argument the gun-grabbers make.
You need to read up on Ben Franklin.
You are completely wrong. Treaties that do not abrogate or abridge the Constitution are Constitutional under Article VI.Your specious argument is that ALL treaties are unconstitutional making you yourself the enemy of it`s original intent.
I`m in the Mark Levin camp where in certain instances there must be rational interpretation by conservatives judges. You are obviously in the libertarian camp that has such an ideologically stratified approach it would ignore modern progress and the need for an FAA or FCC.
Libertarians would allow porn shops and hookers on every street, crack dens and open borders with drugs being openly driven in on 18 wheelers.
There`s a reason the libertarian party will always be on the fringe, because it is.
Irrational and untrue. There were handguns then and there is the 2nd Amendment.
You and Mr. Levin leave us at the mercy of irrational liberal ones with such thinking.
L
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.