Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Do you believe in the "living document" theory of Constitutional interpretation?
If not, can you show me anything that would support that decision as being within the original intent of the commmerce clause?
Amazingly enough, she had a good head on her shoulders and finished high school. She put herself through college and and now her parents accuse her of thinking she's too good for them. rofl
“Well, this statement was certainly not well thought-out. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of offenses that are non-violent but have a direct negative impact on either society as a whole or an individual.”
Name one that does not involve government force. The individual’s life is his own, not societies, and certainly not yours.
Hank
Legalized prostitution would probably help society be decreasing certain street crimes and allowing cops to go after real crime with real victims.
Prostitution as a willing deal between consenting shouldn't be illegal.
Bribery, likely falling under the umbrella of financial crimes, is also relatively "victimless" yet negatively impacts society.
Bribery cheats someone or gives unfair preferential treatment to someone so yes, there is an unwilling victim in this.
Part of your problem is that you don't understand 'initiating force' in its contextual meaning and that 'without defrauding others' should also go with it.
Vices involving consenting adults (drinking, smoking gambling, sex, reading or watching erotica, etc.) may not be activities that are productive and useful to the population at large but are not activities that should be outlawed by government any more than gluttony or sloth should be.
Do you also feel that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to force people to buy health insurance?
“If drugs, why not prostitution, or pornography or bestiality or what ever. After that, why not rape ...”
You don’t see any difference? May you learn it in your own skin. If you do not know the difference between individuals living their lives as they choose, but not interfering in anyone else’s life, and those who do interfere in other’s lives, you deserve neither freedom or safety. You are the problem with America, because you are the one that will interfere in other innocent people’s lives. It was from people like you that individual rights needed to be protected and this country’s government was formed.
Hank
And there is no clearer, sicker call for the evils of ever bigger government than your twisted rationale for sticking government’s nose where it has no legitimate or Constitutional authority to be.
On the other hand, the drug-addicted do present a fertile field for families, churches and other PRIVATE organizations to minister. The SOLE place for government is at the local level, dealing with someone’s PUBLIC behaviors.
I’m not that much older than you, and I actually lived a pretty sheltered life as a kid. People just seem to tell me more about their problems, sometimes just to shock me, but I don’t shock easily anymore.
The kid that got the MRSA is the son of a teacher, his mother is a speech therapist, nicest, Christian people you could ever hope to meet, just not that smart. The heroin/oxy addict that got pneumonia and was suicidal, is also the son of college educated people, very liberal drug users, themselves. Some of the schools in my county are also full of former hippie druggies. The principal at one school had a cocaine problem, but thank goodness, he got promoted to a job with the state dept of education. The guy who spent his adult life in and out of mental institutions was my friend’s brother. He always put her down as his closest relative. Drugs destroy lives.
No it is not.
I have zero "Hatred" for Ron Paultard on a personal level.
But I will not brook his contention that simply using the weapons at hand to clear out trenches in combat (Instead of dismounting from their armored vehicles and duking it out with trench knives perhaps?) was tantamount to crimes against humanity. I believe that makes him wholy unfit to ever be Commander In Chief. And I will point that out to any who consider him for that office, and yes, I will ridicule the judgement of such people, and point out that their patriotism is so nonexistant as to be not even something that they can contend to having in a debate.
I will also point out that you tried to circumvent whether or not his contention was okay, and jumped right in to an ad hominem trying to conflate my positions with those of the leftist kook sites.
I stated why I oppose Paul and posted the link to where any who choose can read him outline his position in his own words. You have refused to address the substance of that. Do you lack the intellect to do so? If not, give it your best shot. Explain to all here how those troops should have halted in the midst of battle so the poor scared little enemy soldiers (who could have surrendered before the engagement began as thousands of their compatriates later did) could have another chsance. That is the issue. That is the ONLY issue.
Be honest enough to address the actual issue I brought up instead of trying to brand those who bring up things inconvenient to you with a "Hater" label, and stop trying to make my position something else.
That said, I think the illegality of prostitution is a much harder thing to defend. It is literally a contract between two people with no apparent injury to uninterested third parties. It really is an example of how some want to run the lives of others. So I'm not rejecting your position out of hand. But I need to be convinced.
I already did that. You should do a bit more reading before responding.
The declaration of war allows more money to be siphoned into the campaign, and it allows people in power to wield more unregulated power.
There was no context for the use of “initiation of force” for me to understand, so I take it literally. Force implies some physical element, and for you to state otherwise is nothing more than apologism for the author of this piece. He didn’t include a phrase like “without infringing upon the rights of others” or “without harming others, physically or otherwise.” He said what he said. You’ve admitted as much by stating that “without defrauding others” should go with it (among other things, if you ask me).
As to your last paragraph, I made no comment about that. If you do agree with that line of thinking, though, you should not be making a statement like the author did.
Then prove it by renouncing your insults of the guy. I think you contradicted yourself in the above sentence, too. The acidic comments you used against Rep. Paul as just like the hateful ones that were made about President Bush @ the websites I mentioned -- different peoson, same attitude.
“I already did that. You should do a bit more reading before responding.”
Typical of those who live to tell other people how to live their lives. You should keep pigs.
Hank
Are you even responding to my posts? I’m a bit concerned now you’re simply responding to the wrong person. You clearly have neither read nor comprehended anything I posted, so I’m hesitant to keep talking with you.
My response was to this:
“Well, this statement was certainly not well thought-out. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of offenses that are non-violent but have a direct negative impact on either society as a whole or an individual.”
To that I responded:
“Name one that does not involve government force. The individual’s life is his own, not societies, and certainly not yours.”
Since then, you have not supplied one example for me. Perhaps you have posted to someone else, but I have seen nothing. Sorry.
Hank
Still dare not address his position, or whether that should disqualify one from the presidency?
Maybe YOU brought up the Daily Kos because you spend a lot of time there. Maybe you think our troops really should just get out and offer flowers in the midst of battle.
Maybe you like Paul because you hate those who defend the United States in battle.
This is a conservative site, and trying to avoid the substance of a debat and whine “Hater! Ooh ooh! Hater!” instead of addressing what another posts is not going to fly.
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.