Posted on 12/06/2012 2:25:44 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
Editor's note: Richard Branson is the founder of Virgin Group, with global branded revenues of $21 billion, and a member of the Global Drug Commission. Sir Richard was knighted in 1999 for his services to entrepreneurship. Watch today for Branson's interview with CNN/US' Erin Burnett Out Front at 7pm ET and tomorrow (12/7) with CNN International's Connect the World program at 4pm ET
(CNN) -- In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished."
This week marks the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933, but Mencken's plea could easily apply to today's global policy on drugs.
We could learn a thing or two by looking at what Prohibition brought to the United States: an increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production and distribution and widespread anger with the federal government.
~snip~
As part of this work, a new documentary, "Breaking the Taboo," narrated by Oscar award-winning actor Morgan Freeman and produced by my son Sam Branson's indie Sundog Pictures, followed the commission's attempts to break the political taboo over the war on drugs. The film exposes the biggest failure of global policy in the past 40 years and features revealing contributions from global leaders, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
It is time we broke the taboo and opened up the debate about the war on drugs. We need alternatives that focus on education, health, taxation and regulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I would. They'd have a hard time of it though. To start with it would require amending our state constitution. I believe CA is the only state that doesn't explicitly acknowlege their citizen's right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution, and IMHO, admitting them into the union without that was a mistake.
By the same token, the federal government can ban firearms if they can get an amendment ratified to grant them to authority to do that. I don't like the idea, and there could well be another civil war over it if they tried, but that's how it works.
OK, point taken.
I neglected to dot my i's in my previous post by noting that the 14th Amendment extended Bill of Rights restrictions to state governments. But if states want to have, say, California's onerous 'environmental' regulations, nothing in the federal Constitution prohibits that.
Thank you.
Can't. Second Amendment and Art 6 Para 2 should be more than enough to stop that nonsense.
You appear confused over how a Federated Republic works...
Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed?
____________________________________________________________
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'
____________________________________________________________
Then what about Illinois and municipalities within states?
The 14th was only "necessary" because of deliberate misinterpretation of Art 6 para 2. Also, selective incorporation of the 14th has only made matters worse. Under ratification, the 14th should have applied everywhere within the US under Art 6's Supremacy clause requiring no judicial review to allow it force.
Judicial activism planted the seeds of our own destruction early in the life of our Republic. We are now seeing those seed sprout their deadly fruit...
There's nothing to keep any state or city from trying to do something unconstitutional.
Assuming a sane Supreme Court, those attempts are overturned.
The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed. Yet many people pass laws, state and locally restricting and in some cases outlawing that right. Why do the people allow it?
First, what is your answer to my question? To repeat:
Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, YES or NO? '
People/government can't always be expected to do what is moral and right.
and where in that do you find a right to drugs, incest, gay marriage, open borders and no more agent of consent?
Yes. Can you provide a legitimate reason why people in government can't have the right to keep and bear arms?
You aren't very observant, are you? (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
Illinois and many municipalities have severely restricted or banned possession of certain firearms.
You: Yes.
Me: Credit for giving a straight answer. Good luck with that position.
You: Can you provide a legitimate reason why people in government can't have the right to keep and bear arms?
People in government, as citizens with unalienable rights, have the RKBA. Governments don't have the RKBA. You're conflating what shouldn't be conflated.
Let's try the Tenth Amendment with your novel interpretation of the term 'people':
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the local, state and federal governments.
Do you not see how laughable your position is?
No, I see how ignorant you are. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the government.
In some cases, yes. For example, the Senate - as opposed to the House - was supposed to represent the States. The judiciary is supposed interpret according to Law, not popular sentiment.
I ask again, are you good with equating 'government' with 'people' in the Tenth Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the government.
YES or NO?
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.