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.
Do you also demand that business owners stop everyone from smoking in their privately owned businesses JUST because you decide you MIGHT want to patronize that business someday?
Course, he's 6'2 and 200lbs, and a former Marine so he doesn't get a lot of people that try to get in his face, customers OR co-workers. LOL!
To me, it's fantastic to go to a place, open to the public, and NOT have to smell someone else's cigarette while I'm trying to have a nice meal. Then to go home, and have THEIR cigarette smell in MY clothes? If you smoke in your own house, that's your problem.
It's not a question of a "right to smoke".
The question is, should your likes and dislikes be enough to take away a constitutional right of a property owner?
I think the guy was insinuating that we smokers are acting like babies. pot:kettle:black, IMO. I would be fine if we had designated areas to smoke-but now it's ridiculous. Now they moan about outdoor smoke....when their campaign put us outside instead of in a smoking lounge or section. So who is it who wants it their way or no way? Who is it who expects the world to revolve around them? Smokers have made concessions and an effort to accomodate those offended by smoking. They, otoh, are never happy. Nappie indeed.
PS...you hubby sounds like a great guy to work for :)
That sounds about right. *sigh* How boring, and unoriginal, lol.
P.S. Mr. Ex says it's a "love him or hate him" kind of thing. The lazy ones hate him, lol. He doesn't much care at bottom, so long as they respect him, lol. He likes to pretend that's so, anyway. :)
Mr Ex sounds like my kind of boss....my strength was how hard I worked. It's good to work for a boss who doesn't suffer slackers. :)
Amen to that...a boss with no backbone may as well not be a boss at all. You can be friendly, but you can't be FRIENDS. A lot of guys (and gals, too, of course, lol) have a hard time separating the two.
I'll take a hardass for a boss any day over someone who continually does whatever they can to avoid "being mean". Some folks won't respect you and do what they're supposed to until they know you mean business, in my experience. That being said, I'm glad I don't have his job, lol! My job is hard enough! (I'm a SAHM now).
"That being said, I'm glad I don't have his job, lol! My job is hard enough! (I'm a SAHM now)."
I could have gone into management....but didn't want the aggravation :) I've been a SAHM the last 7 years....THE hardest job (IMO).
I pity people who make assinine comments.
Sorry, that perfection is reserve.
Assine comments draw only my contempt.
Once again, in simple language, the question is, should your likes and dislikes be enough to take away a constitutional right of a property owner?
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.