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.
"All that typing research etc devoted to that, all the while placing children in harms way by allowing gays to adopt, and forcing them to "study" homosexual lifestyles" and encouraging the practice thereof, at schools."
EXACTLY!!
>> I have much bigger things to protect my kids from. <<
LOL!! You must have just read my previous post. You are absolutely correct. There are FAR worse things than smoking tobacco. I know first hand.
But smoking bans are not an attempt to keep it out of public.......they are attempting to keep it out of private places, that is the difference.
Ban it at DMV, the court house or other government buildings, and although smokers are taxpayers supporting those places, you won't get much arguement.
But government banning of it in my private office, on my private property is an infringement upon private property rights.
Isn't that the truth! I'm sorry about your friends...that must have been very hard to go through. :(
As for me, my parents worried about my smoking because I have always been the goody-two-shoes...never caused them a lick of trouble about anything. I did drink, two times (seriously!!) but never to excess and NEVER EVER drove. If I went somewhere, I called to check in...without being told. Good student, blah blah blah. No boyfriend until spring of my senior year. Needless to say, they thought my smoking meant I was heading in a bad direction, since it was out of character...can't explain it, myself, to be honest. :)
"Anyone who tries to stop me from smoking in my own home better be ready for a fight because that's exactly what you're going to get if you try."
It's ridiculous. What ever happened to people minding their own business? The are places OUTSIDE where smoking is banned. Places where the only place you CAN smoke is in your home....
Oh, I agree, but that won't stop the otherwise unemployables at the American Legacy Foundation from trying to make it a major issue.
I just love all these Frankenstein organizations that are funded by the Tobacco Settlement.
Smokers being forced to fund their own vilification.
I have nothing against the newcomers........except when they take a position without listening to evidence to the contrary, just because thye don't like a differing position.
They will get quickly added to the HTT list...........
>> I'm sorry about your friends...that must have been very hard to go through. <<
Thanks. It was a painful lesson but one I've never forgotten. I'm just thankful I made that mistake early enough in my life to recover from it and lead a normal and productive life.
Mommy -- You're not allowed to SMOKE AROUND ME! When I go back to school, I'm telling.
I would imagine so, if they keep this up. And what's with that, anyway?? They're making me look bad, just on principle, darn it!! LOL
Can I get a bumper sticker that says that? LOL
I had one on my van for years, but got rid of the van last fall.........I know I've got another one around somewhere here, I need to find it to put it on my car.
You won't believe anything we have to say to dispute the word of the anti's. You have your mind made up. And that truly is a pity.
Just because you don't like smoking, (smoking isn't for everyone) you still paint us with a broad brush of being vile people. Do you really think that is fair?
Do you realize that a lot of us are Christian, work at decent jobs, are parents and grandparents and a lot are even on the PTA? Why do you continually want to believe that we all live under a rock just because we smoke?
I bet. :)
It's a wedge issue. A camels nose under the tent issue. A socializm issue like the wetbacks swarming across the border. Really, I won't smoke around you if you don't like it.
Actually, I just read it now! Great minds and all.....
:)
" the otherwise unemployables at the American Legacy Foundation"
LOLOL
"Mommy -- You're not allowed to SMOKE AROUND ME! When I go back to school, I'm telling."
Yes, coming soon.....
Good grief.
I realize certain accomadations need to be made for the disabled, but this is taking it far too far to the extreme.
Since these type people are in the minority, maybe they should be the ones not inconveniencing the majority?
OOPs....I'm not being PC
Yup.......that's the one I had on my van for years. And had one on the car I had before that.
For the first time in more than 10 years I don't have one on my car..........but my license plates do have tobacco leaves on them......
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.