[Petronski]

People need to realize that there is a difference between (a) a belief that something should be illegal and (b) an understanding that the constitution does not prevent such illegality. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

Nothing in the constitution prohibits banning the import and sale of apricots. Stating this fact about the constitution is not the same as stating one's opposition to the import and sale of apricots. And if my state did ban the import and sale of apricots, I would not be 'anti-apricot' by stating that there is nothing in the constitution on the topic. In fact, insofar as I happen to like apricots, I would say this:

There is nothing unconstitutional about the apricot ban. It might be a silly law, or unenforceable, or even offensive, but until we change the constitution, the apricot ban is not unconstitutional. We might want to add a 'right to apricots,' but until that amendment succeeds, a ban on apricots is well within the authority of the government.

[tpaine]

People need to realize that there is a difference between (a) a belief that something should be illegal and (b) an understanding that the constitution does not prevent such illegality. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits banning the import and sale of apricots. Stating this fact about the constitution is not the same as stating one's opposition to the import and sale of apricots. And if my state did ban the import and sale of apricots, I would not be 'anti-apricot' by stating that there is nothing in the constitution on the topic. In fact, insofar as I happen to like apricots, I would say this:

There is nothing unconstitutional about the apricot ban.

It might be a silly law, or unenforceable, or even offensive, but until we change the constitution, the apricot ban is not unconstitutional. We might want to add a 'right to apricots,' but until that amendment succeeds, a ban on apricots is well within the authority of the government.

45 -Pski-

Backwards.
Goverments in the USA, neither fed, state, or local, have ever been granted the power to ban/prohibit any type of property,
-- as was evidenced by booze prohibition & repeal, made possible only by constitutional amendment.

A reasonable case can be made for criminalizing the possession of WMD as a health/safety measure, - and thats about it.
Thus, there is ~everything~ constitutionally wrong with ludicrous apricot type 'bans'.

They shove the principles of our free republic down a 'democratic' style totalitarian toilet.