Replies

While I do not support drug use I too believe that the war on drugs (Especially Marijuana) is ruinous to our liberties in a wider sense. I believe it should be up to the states as was intended by our constitutional republic. -khepera

Ya beat me to it by one post, I said something very similar to tpaine in post #104. I think conservatives and libertarians should work together to turn a lot of these issues back to the states, to restore federalism and the 10th Amendment.
That is where I see we have the strongest common ground.
From there, the debate on this matter, between conservatives and libertarians, can be much more robust, and through the debate different states can try different approaches, and we can see which approaches have merit and which ones won't work.

Indeed, that the Tenth must be enforced IS common ground.

The problem then evolves to defining this part of the 10th, -- what are the constitutional 'powers --- prohibited by it to the states'?
To me, the 14th emumerated some of these prohibited powers, namely those of life, liberty, and propery.
- And made it clear that while states can make law to 'regulate' public acts using due process, they can not prohibit or infringe upon private victimless acts, - IE - 'sins'.

The problem then evolves to defining this part of the 10th, -- what are the constitutional 'powers --- prohibited by it to the states'? To me, the 14th emumerated some of these prohibited powers, namely those of life, liberty, and propery.

I disagree. IMO the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the states. But it causes some problems if you use the 9th in conjunction with the 14th. The 9th was fine when it was linked with the 10th. But throw in the 14th, and you have a recipe for judicial activism. IMO the 9th was put in place to keep the feds from restricting rights not enumerated in the BOR. But the states still had powers to restrict those unenumerated rights as they saw fit (some states or localities, for example, ban or restrict the consumption of alcohol). Once the 14th came along, it stood in contradiction to the 9th, a situation the courts have resolved by basically ignoring the 9th.

- And made it clear that while states can make law to 'regulate' public acts using due process, they can not prohibit or infringe upon private victimless acts, - IE - 'sins'.

I would disagree to a certain extent. Please review my post above to Khepera that covers my opinions of DUI laws. There is legal precedent to not just act again harm, but also act against a certain probability of harm. And that is what Khepera is talking about. The most sound debate is, how do we mitigate against harm? Prostitution is often NOT victimless - diseases are spread, families are impacted. So what is the proper role of dealing with that, and what can be done to mitigate harm?