Florida's Smoking ban...class action suit

American Constitutional Research Service | 7-03-03 | John William Kurowski

[rontorr]

I didn't have the time to read the whole thing, but at the top it says something about a voter initiative, which I am assuming means a majority of the people agreed on something, and since that is the way things are done in this country, unless the Supreme court declares it unconstitutional you can bitch all you want about gov't interference, but it stands.

[Gabz]

PUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gabz]

It may stand at the moment, but how in good conscience can you sit there and accept the fact that people who have no vested interest in a private business establishment have now determined how the owner will conduct his business?

The stupidity of the sheeple never ceases to amaze me.

[Orangedog]

The soccer moms and the other useful idiots think that they scored such a victory "for the children" with the looting of "big tobacco" and turning smokers into the lepers of society. What they have really done is empower those who practice the systematic destruction of personal and financial freedom. Now that they've finished with the tobacco companies and smokers, they are now teeing up fast food businesses. SUV makers and owners will be next. Makers of alcohol won't be able to rest either.

We'll hear the useful idiots bitch and moan when it's their ox being gored. They will be given the same treatment as smokers, and I hope they don't expect any help from us when they have to shell out $9 for a happy meal for their little rug rats when they were screwing us in order to "protect." I would say "let them eat cake", but a cake mix will cost about $20, so they better save up.

[BCrago66]

All this would be very interesting, were it not for the fact that the "American Constitutional Research Service" is a guy living in his Mom's basement blogging from an old Commodore 64.

[JOHN W K]

Like you said, you did not read the whole article...I suggest go back and read what the SCOTUS has said about a majority vote and constitutionally protected rights.

[Gabz]

You've pinned the tail on the donkey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gabz]

And you know this....................HOW?????????

[MississippiMan]

Every one of these smoking bans that forbid a business owner to allow the use of a legal product in his own business should obviously be struck down. The most rudimentary common sense holds that no business owner should be forced to please a certain segment of people and provide for their comfort. If a customer doesn't want to patronize a place that allows smoking, they don't have to.

And it would seem, based on previous SCOTUS rulings, that the court would agree. EXCEPT for the fact that we know this court has NO problem reversing earlier SCOTUS decisions.

So, I sure hope the people who are fighting these bans prevail, but I sure wouldn't count on it. The assumption that our court system will walk the path of constitutionality cannot be made.

And no, I'm not a smoker.

MM

[ETERNAL WARMING]

May a majority vote of the People of Florida alter or deny constitutionally protected and fundamental rights of those who they may outvote?

NO. That would be Mob Rule, something which our Forefathers tried desperately to avoid. That is why we have a Republic rather than a Democracy.

[G.Mason]

Perhaps you should read more.

[aruanan]

The U.S. Supreme Court in LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) involving rights associated with property ownership pointed out that property does not“loose its private character merely....

I hope the U.S. Supreme Court didn't write "loose" for "lose."

[aruanan]

All this would be very interesting, were it not for the fact that the "American Constitutional Research Service" is a guy living in his Mom's basement blogging from an old Commodore 64.

In other words, it's not the content of what someone says that determines its importance or value but who that person is. Welcome to the world of Hollywood social activism.

[searchandrecovery]

All this would be very interesting, were it not for the fact that the "American Constitutional Research Service" is a guy living in his Mom's basement blogging from an old Commodore 64.

I'll take truth and insight wherever I can find it. Jealous that you're living in your Mom's basement but DON'T have C-64? Hahahahahahahaha. Loser.

[TLBSHOW]

Now New York Socialist want to ban smoking all smoking. They are setting up at fairs and shows with their little booths and hands out to the kids.

The sheep are asleep.

[JOHN W K]

My mistake...sorry!

[Mr. Bird]

You better hope we all don't vote to throw rocks at your head. Really, you should read then post a comment. It reduces the chance you'll be revealed as an imbecile.

[JOHN W K]

ETERNAL WARMING WROTE:

“May a majority vote of the People of Florida alter or deny constitutionally protected and fundamental rights of those who they may outvote? NO. That would be Mob Rule, something which our Forefathers tried desperately to avoid. That is why we have a Republic rather than a Democracy.”

In regard to two wolves and a sheep voting for what shall be for dinner, see here , I think you will find the documentation concerning the Founding Fathers very useful.

Frome smoke free, to fat free, to obese free, and now,Fragrance free is a civil rights issue!

Have a great day you socialists, wherever you are.

JWK ACRS

[whereasandsoforth]

I'm gonna have to light up a Tennyson Convertible and open a bottle of Pomac while I ponder this. Does this mean the Supreme Court would be forced to nullify all smoking bans extended to private property?