[SJC_Libertarian]

It's not hard to believe that a self-described libertarian would resort to that disingenuous anti-American canard.

I see that I have not misread your hostility. You continue to dismiss my honest attempts to communicate with insults like "disingenuous" and "anti-American".

There is nothing "disingenuous" or "anti-American" about my comments: Either the "War on Drugs" is Constitutionally proper and Federal agencies are acting within their Constitutionally granted authority, or no Constitutional Amendment was required for Prohibition.

Our "representatives" may indeed have been answering to the popular will in enacting these laws, but regardless of that, they have exceeded their Constitutional Authority, and these laws are for that reason illegitimate. The Constitution, in case you have forgotten, was supposedly designed to allow majority rule, conditioned and limited by protection of minority rights. It is for this reason not properly interpreted as a carte blanche for the supposed "will of the majority", whether expressed by the enactments of "representatives" or not.

In my humble opinion, a defense of the principles of Freedom which is critical of the current anti-Constitutional miasma is fiercely American. It is those who defend tyranny in the name of "majority will" who are anti-American. No offense intended.

[Roscoe]

1. It's hard to believe that a supposed conservative would resort to this standard liberal canard:

2, I see that I have not misread your hostility. You continue to dismiss my honest attempts to communicate with insults like "disingenuous" and "anti-American".

And I see that I have not misread your hostility. Or hypocrisy.

Our "representatives" may indeed have been answering to the popular will in enacting these laws, but regardless of that, they have exceeded their Constitutional Authority, and these laws are for that reason illegitimate.

Bologna. Baseless, of course.