Police: Utah woman tried to trade salad for drugs

“You’ve admitted on record to advocating laws that you believe violate the Constitution. If that is not contempt, then the term is meaningless.

At least show some honesty and own up to it. “

I obviously don’t define contempt the way you do.

The Constitution is for a majority of God-fearing, moral, self-governing people.

If they are going to abuse it to the point of, for instance, enslaving, abusing, and killing thousands of people in the name of “state’s rights,”. . .

then it isn’t going to work.

I obviously don't define contempt the way you do.

That's a possibility. Let's take a test:

1. Suppose someone claims to believe in the Bible, but advocates for violating one of the Ten Commandments. Would that person be showing contempt for the Bible? My answer: "Yes"

2. Suppose one of the parties in a binding legal contract decides to violate one or two provisions of the agreement. Would that person be showing contempt for the contract? My answer: "Yes"

3. Suppose someone advocates for laws that violate the Constitution. Would that person be showing contempt for the Constitution? My answer: "Yes"

So my answers are "Yes" to all three. What are yours?

“1. Suppose someone claims to believe in the Bible, but advocates for violating one of the Ten Commandments. Would that person be showing contempt for the Bible? My answer: “Yes”

- It would depend upon the situation. For instance, stealing is forbidden. However, David and his men ate the showbread dedicated to the LORD and God did not charge them with sin. I could name other examples. Rahab lied; so did the midwives; yet they were actually lauded for it. Yet lying is normally a sin. I don’t think any of them were showing contempt for the Bible.

2. Suppose one of the parties in a binding legal contract decides to violate one or two provisions of the agreement. Would that person be showing contempt for the contract? My answer: “Yes”

- It would depend upon the situation. Suppose you had a binding legal contract to deliver ten desks to me this afternoon. Yet you were in a car accident and the desks were ruined; you could not deliver. Or beyond the idea of “could not,” suppose you received news that your dad had suffered a heart attack and was expected to only be lucid for a couple more hours; you need to go say goodbye. I don’t think you’d show contempt for the contract by going to see him instead of delivering the desks.

3. Suppose someone advocates for laws that violate the Constitution. Would that person be showing contempt for the Constitution? My answer: “Yes”

-It would depend upon the situation. Suppose the states, rather than behaving like Godly moral men, behaved like Bonobos and legalized slavery. The feds say, we aren’t supposed to have jurisdiction over the states, but we did not anticipate human slavery with all its murder and torture and total inhumanity; people are being killed each day, whipped until their flesh falls off, women are being bred like cattle; we are therefore going to forbid the slavery to the point of going to war to stop it. I don’t think they are showing contempt for the Constitution in that case. I think the southerners did, in the exercise of slavery, because they took their freedoms and enslaved others most cruelly.

I believe I have a biblical basis for asserting that not every break with every commandment is always a sin. The circumstances DO matter, and that does not mean a lack of ethics. Circumstances such as inconvenience or humiliation or making ourselves uncomfortable or poor should not alter our course; but when we see human suffering on a vast scale due to circumstances beyond our control, we must do what we can to stop it.

Normally, Ken, I can’t run into your house without your invitation. But if I see it’s on fire I will, and what is different? The imminent loss of life. Trespassing laws, normally and rightly kept, go by the wayside sometimes. As do most laws in extreme circumstances.

My contemplation of these issues shows respect, not contempt.

“What you’re saying is that the drug problem is such a threat that it qualifies as an exigent circumstance, and that is what justifies fedgov violating the Constitution to deal with it.

Fair take? “

It’s a fair read, assuming that the states either are refusing to do their job OR that the fedgov has restricted them from doing their job.

The way they do, for example, with illegal aliens.

It is immoral, wrong, for the fedgov to refuse to allow states (like AZ) to enforce their border, and then refuse to police it themselves. It’s ridiculous, it’s unconstitutional, and I hope AZ wins their court case.

If the states are reasonably and efficiently doing a good job enforcing decent drug laws, to where a bunch of innocent people including American citizens and dependents are not getting abused or neglected to death, then I don’t think the fedgov has a moral imperative to get involved.

Except on national borders, which I don’t think you disagree with.

National drug prohibition under the Commerce Clause, which you agreed was a violation of the Constitution, has been with us for decades. The WOD was given cabinet level priority over 20 years when Bill Bennett (bless his lying, gambling addicted heart) became the first drug czar.

To call this an exigent circumstance is a corruption of the language. Every tyrant uses the excuse of an exigent situation to justify their rights violating actions.

The Constitution has provisions for dealing with exigent circumstances such as invasions, rebellion and public unrest. Those provisions are not in the Commerce Clause.

If you want a national drug war, do the honorable thing and get an Amendment passed, rather than spit on the Constitution.

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.