Posted on 01/13/2003 7:31:37 AM PST by MrLeRoy
Check your system clock -- it's 2003.
Slavery was ended, and women given the vote, BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; no amendment was passed to turn the Commerce Clause on its head.
Check your system clock -- it's 2003. </>
Your reliance on quintessential liberal rehtoric is revealing.
How typical. Common sense is illogical and an accurate description of what our society would look like should Liberaltarians have any influence is name calling and unfactual, I remain glad your "cult of selfishness" is irrelevant in this country.
Now go back to your dorm room, hit your bong and play some Dead…leave the discussion to the grown-ups. OK dude?
Is the Constitution an enduring document - it's meaning fixed and absolute - or is it a "living, breathing document" whose meaning changes with the times?
You have provided no facts or logic in support of your claims about "common sense" or "what our society would look like."
Now go back to your dorm room, hit your bong and play some Dead…leave the discussion to the grown-ups. OK dude?
The above is your idea of how grown-ups discuss, eh? LOL!
I've noticed that. Unfortunately any time you question anything about WOD some here automatically brand you as a Libertarian. Apparently in their mind it is the summation of all insults and the only thing they can come up with.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to act against such a person---nor against a downstate Illinois farmer who grows acres of marijuana for sale within Illinois.
The title said that: "Marijuana's harm illusory." My point is that it isn't illusory at all, but that it is likely to be less than the cost of maintaining the WOD. Just as there was a downside to legalizing alcohol that was less than the cost of keeping it illegal.
I emphasize that because we're getting out of the area of theory now, or at least I get the sense that we are, and into the area of actually enacting a serious change in social policy in this arena. We can either factor in the downside ahead of time or we can get blindsided by the critics who will be screaming for a reenactment of prohibition just as soon as the downside becomes evident. I'm for being proactive, that's all.
Crummy title, that, since the author did not make such a claim. (I know it's not the author's title, as this piece has appeared elsewhere under another title.)
Of course it doesn't. The Federal courts have allow the Government to take over many things not permitted by the Constitution. The question is not whether are they allowed to do something, the fact is that they can get away with it.
Just exercising my Right of Free Speech. Do you have a problem with that Adolf?
What's it cost to house a prisoner for a year, Bob? 40K maybe? Mulitplied by 10,000 that's 4 million dollars, and 10,000 jail spaces so we don't have to parole REAL criminals earlier.
How mush does the average worker pay in taxes yearly, Bob? The average income is around 39K, so let's say the average worker pays 8,000 in taxes per year. Multiplied by 10,000, that's pretty close to a Million dollars of lost tax revenue.
Net savings, 5 million dollars a year to government and 10,000 available prison slots to house real criminals.
This is your version of "grown-up" discussion?
More specifically, your Right To Look Like A Twit.
Do you have a problem with that
Not at all---it gives me something to mock.
Why is that not the question? Isn't that exactly the question conservatives should be frequently asking?
They went, all right.
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.