Posted on 05/13/2002 3:12:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
What provision gives them the right to do anything about drugs?
By what provision was that unconstitional?
Why does there have to be a provision explicitly permitting drug laws?
You're extremely confused. The courts don't do any of those things. Legislatures and Governors which are popularly elected pass (or don't) pass laws calling for those things and prsecutors prosecute them. Remember, I'm talking about COURT DECISIONS HERE!!!! DO YOU REMEMBER THAT???? You have continually asserted that it doesn't matter who controls the courts amongst Democrats and Republicans!!!!
One cannot go to jail, pursuant to sentence, for a seat-belt violation in nearly jurisdiction; what then can be the possible State interest in allowing a tyranical punk with a badge (and I am NOT referring to all or most cops, but absolutely the shoe fits this one) physically arrest under the circumstances?
It clearly violates one's Constitutional right against an illegal arrest, and arguably constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to handcuff, strip-search, and incarcerate for eight to ten hours (longer if a OR bond is not given) a person for driving without a seat-belt.
I am not bashing conservatives by pointing all of this out; I am bashing conservatives who behave like liberals. And, in this case, the Supreme Court acted like Hillary Clinton would have, a nasty nanny with an iron fist.
I know the courts don't do any of those things... if you read the whole post it said "the GOP", that means the politicians as a whole. The judges from both parties routinely uphold these laws, which makes them co-conspirators.
Have you ever heard of the Tenth Amendment?
If they're not unconstitutional why shouldn't they be upheld?
Excuse me? They ARE unconstitutional... that's the whole point. You're really grasping at straws here. You know you can't win the argument so you keep changing the subject. I'll say it again in a different way. Show me where the Constitution gives the government power over our bodies or what we put in them.
MY ANSWER: The Tenth Amendment; that's why it's there! Also, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," What part of INALIENABLE do you not understand? It means- government shall make no law--- none, that infringe on these rights. Why is this principle so difficult for conservatives to grasp?
And if you guys can get a dogcatcher on the ballot in my town, I'll be glad to vote for him if the only Republican dogcatcher is a RINO.
Sorry I should have sent that post to No Pardons instead. But while I'm on the subject a Libertarian dogcatcher won't do you any good. I believe freedom is an all or nothing proposition. Voting for Libertarian dogcatchers and Republican everything else will result in your dog having a heck of a lot more freedom than you.
Congress clearly has the power to outlaw drugs under the Interstate Commerce Clause, certainly ones which are transported or sold across state lines. Perhaps the Feds are prohibited from outlawing growing marijuana in your living room for your personal use. If anyone has been prosecuted for that, it would have been under state or local laws anyway.
Also, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," What part of INALIENABLE do you not understand? It means- government shall make no law--- none, that infringe on these rights. Why is this principle so difficult for conservatives to grasp?
The preamble to the constitution doesn't have the force of invalidating Federal Laws. It's a general philosophical statement. It's introducing the constitution which follows. It doesn't have any specific application. When has there ever been a court case where a law was struck down based on the preamble to the constitution, from the time when the drafters of the constitution were running the government till now? Cite me just one case.
Libertarians are not leftists. Leftists tend to be socialists, collectivists, and statists -- the antithesis of everything Libertarians stand for.
The Libertarian platform would abolish the FBI and CIA I believe.
Probably. The legitimate duties of those agencies would be incorporated into the DOD. The federal government is Constitutionally authorized to prosecute only 3 crimes.
Browne opposes the war in Afghanistan.
As do I and many others. The war in Afghanistan has cost the lives of thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11. It will not teach terrorists a lesson and will not make us safer. The proper thing to do would've been to gather intelligence and seek out those responsible. However, that would've taken too long and the President needed to do something fast to appease the American peoples' thirst for vengeance.
They wouldn't have a draft under any circumstances.
Correct. Conscription would constitute involuntary servitude.
Then there's support for all abortion, including partial birth.
Many Libertarians oppose abortion and believe it should be a crime under the law.
What kind of vehicle is that for getting the country in a more conservative direction?
Take a look at the Republican record for the last 10 years and ask yourself the same question.
It's true the libertarians are far more conservative on economic issues than most Republicans, but so what? They'd abolish the income tax. They'd abolish all pollution laws. There's no chance of getting those things done. I couldn't support alot of the Libertarian economic platform.
Libertarians would abolish income, property, capital gains, and inheritence taxes. The EPA and AQMD would be closed down. Environmental regulations would be repealed. It would be up to consumers to pressure companies and others to be environmentally friendly. It can be done. McDonalds went from using styrofoam containers to paper wrappers as a result of consumer pressure.
It's important to note that the most polluted property in the country is owned and operated by government. This is because government has no financial interest in the future value of the property.
Of course, but if that violated due process, anyone who's arrested and incarcerated prior to conviction had their rights violated, regardless of what the charge is.
I have a feeling the court decided the case on the narrow issue of whether the policeman had the legal right to arrest her. Obviously if an arrest was legal it doesn't grant the cop the right to do anything he feels like. But I don't know what the details of the case were. Perhaps she resisted arrest. Perfectly understandable. I might have done the same. The whole thing sounds outrageous, but unconstitutional? I don't know.
Oh great, another religious fanatic adds their comments to the destruction of individual liberty, rights and freedoms because because they believe in the adjudicated decision.
Look at it this way. You got Jeffords out of the deal. I mean, he always was a Dem deep down but now he's official and he wouldn't have been if Dubya didn't win the election. Which he did according to the Constitution.
And Gray Davis is still your governor -- although hopefully not for long -- so don't despair.
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.