“Please point out just where in the Constitution ANY level of government is given the authority to wage such a war on our own citizens. Bear in mind that the Constitution defines what GOVERNMENT is allowed to do, not the opposite. The war on some drugs has NO BASIS IN THE CONSTITUTION TO EXIST, period. If you believe otherwise, SHOW ME.”
As I’m sure you know, the “war on drugs” is a slogan, not an official declaration of war. And the war is on DRUGS, not the American people. The constitutional right to declare drugs illegal is the same as that for making anything illegal.
As it turns out, the “war” is on the American people, as it is THEY (we) who pay the price for it, directly, as in this Marine’s case, or indirectly, in loss of our constitutionally-guaranteed rights, not to mention the increase in REAL crimes that are directly related to this so-called war. But I notice that you couldn’t point out where the Constitution authorizes this war. All you could do was say it really isn’t “war” on Americans by the government. Which is ALSO a lie.
Unintentionally, you just made his point. The bastardized interpretation of the commerce clause used by FedGov to outlaw drugs allows them to make ANYTHING illegal. Think- Bible, skateboards, corn syrup, heirloom seeds....anything.
A total rape of original intent.
And the war is on DRUGS, not the American people
The war on drugs is a joke. First, the idea that an inanimate object can be the adversary in a 'war' is retarded. The war is with people involved in selling and using drugs. Come on.
More importantly though, the war is an ABJECT FAILURE. Is there anywhere in the whole country, where anyone can't get any drug they want, day or night? The only effect of the war on drugs is rampant and violent abuse by the government of 4th amendment protections. And maybe making drugs a little more expensive.
Asking again:
Do you think it is constitutional for fedgov to impose national drug prohibition via the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think that authority should be left to the states under the Tenth Amendment?
OK, since you three are the duty WOsD cheerleaders, let’s have a history lesson.
The Declaration of Independence is the legal authority which founded this nation. It has a great deal of import on all which has followed. If you read it through, you see that the Founders had had much the same sort of thing as we suffer under the war on some drugs. Their oppressor was also their government, the government of George III and his Parliament. So I KNOW they would find this modern tyranny as offensive as they did his.
They put in an item about government with and by the “consent of the governed.” What did they mean? It seems pretty simple: You gave your INFORMED CONSENT to the acts of government, for they were done in your name and on your behalf. HOWEVER, you cannot give consent to government to do ANYTHING that YOU may not justly do. In the current instance, YOU cannot justly beat down your neighbor’s door and kill him for resisting, just because you think he might be using a substance of which you disapprove. Therefore, you cannot PROPERLY have anyone else doing so FOR YOU. It’s just that simple.
Can you possibly justify these raids (or anything even close to them) in light of the DoI? If so, please explain WHY. If not, then HOW do you justify this travesty?