Posted on 01/13/2005 11:53:07 AM PST by bob3443
Constitutional Arguments Against Smoking Bans
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Smoking is a freedom of speech i.e. personal liberty. Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Converting private property for public use refers to using property for the benefit of the population at large. To wit: condemning land for the use of building a municipal government center. The property owner will receive fair compensation.
If Government regulates the use of private property in such a way as will harm the profitability of a business located on said private property, or the fair market value of the property itself, and by such regulation declare or imply that said property is in fact public, it stands to reason that the government in the position of owing just compensation to the owner of said property.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
In order to be compensated for business losses directly attributed to a smoking ban, business owners will have the right to demand a jury trial if such losses are in excess of $20.00
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Were a smoking ban to be enacted and said ban was violated by either the owner of a business or a customer of the business, such fines could be no more than a minimum fine imposed on any other minor infraction of the law. Further, any action taken by the enforcing body of the government can not be so excessive as to destroy the business itself. Such action might be, but not limited to. Criminal prosecution, excessive fines, graduated fines, cancellation of food, liquor or other types of licenses or any other action that could be construed to be use of power to intimidate the private property owner or client or guest of said owner.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Constitution is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people. The passage of any type of ban is a “bad faith”: activity local and state government that violates the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. Such bans further pits the general desires of a specific group of people against the rights of the private property owner and the clients of said property owner.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The rights’ of the people are always preeminent to the rights of the government.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A ban of any kind by its very definition is an abridgement of the privileges of the citizens. Bans create an inequality as they would relate to the protection of the laws.
Amendment XVIII Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. (The fact that this amendment was repealed I feel speaks to the fact that the government overstepped its bounds by ratifying an amendment that was unto itself patently unconstitutional. It further demonstrates how even as great as our Constitution is, it can still be held hostage when those who govern us lose sight of the true purpose of this document.)
Amendment XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Unfortunately there are too few polite people in this world.
I remember how my friend's mom forty years ago would go out on her back porch to smoke. I always thought it odd but I guess she was just ahead of her time.
:)
""Certainly,BUT SMOKE THE DAMN WEED OUTSIDE. I DON'T NEED CANCER FROM YOUR BUTT."
All studies have shown there is 'no proveable link ' of cancer to second hand smoke.
Guess you never heard of zoning.
The upside of this, of course, is that by dousing yourself with scent before you go to work you could avoid any contact with the neurotics on the fifth floor virtually forever.
This must be a great relief to the people on all the other floors. They may even have suggested it, now that I think of it.
The anti's talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Just like Phillip Morris. They still make and sell cigarettes, then they spend big bucks on that TV Ad for everyone to quit smoking and how bad it is for us.
They are huge hypocrites!
She talks about how beautiful she is. Boy! Talk about being 'stuck on herself!'
I just think this is hillarious. A State Department even in a building that is many floors high (14 I think). Anyway, if all State Departments decided to do this in their respective buildings I was just wondering what kind of issues this could bring forth. What a load accomodate a few and expense many.
I'm glad my kid is grown. But she and my son-in-law both smoke, and they have my 3 year-old grandson. He is military so it's a double wammy for them. They smoke out on their balcony, away from the little one, and they never smoke in their vehicles with him.
They do not want grief from Health and Human Services nor do they want grief from his Commander.
No, never. Please 'splain it to me, justshutupandtakeit. /sarcasm/
The SCOTUS has ruled over and over and over again that the First Amendment applies to state and local government by virtue of the 14th Amendment. You can disagree with the SCOTUS all you want, but the issue is has already been decided.
After all, what with the "addiction" and all.
Hey, it's worth a shot.
Where do you come up ETS is, "categorically dangerous"?
Can you support this with indisputable facts?
Yeah, it tends to distract somewhat from her looks, doesn't it?
I've seen lots of people (male and female) that are just drop-dead gorgeous...until they open their mouths.
Dated a guy like that once...BIG MISTAKE!! Mr. Ex, however, has the total package...looks and BRAINS! Rrrowr!
LOL
I wondered if they were airing those ads because either (1) the government made them do it or (2) their lawyers suggested they do it.
Even if that's not the case, I wouldn't call them hypocrites. They're selling a product that some people want. If they want to give potential customers the chance to make a fully-informed decision, that's not necessarily hypocritical. That's just free enterprise.
How could it be free enterprise if the government forced them to do it?
Nice, ain't it? One of the docs at the clinic (When I was pg with my four year old (well, the younger four year old) was threatening to remove my half-duty chit (I had one for the last two months, due to swelling) if I didn't quit smoking. He never did, but the simple threat was scary enough.
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.