Skip to comments.
Congress Shall Make No Law
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/nolaw.html ^
| 1/24/05
| Matt Giwer
Posted on 01/25/2005 3:57:10 PM PST by jonestown
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-213 next last
"The Constitution is not sacred. It can be changed at any time and the means of changing it are stated within it."
-Matt Giwer-
True enough, - however, the basic principles of our Constitution cannot be materially changed or 'amended away'.
We have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property that cannot be prohibited by Amendment.
1
posted on
01/25/2005 3:57:10 PM PST
by
jonestown
To: jonestown
Perhaps not by Amendment, but definitely by judiciary. There is the greatest threat to liberty and property rights.
2
posted on
01/25/2005 4:03:50 PM PST
by
Whitehawk
To: Whitehawk
...and a threat to life if you just happen to be unborn.
3
posted on
01/25/2005 4:06:04 PM PST
by
Rumwarthor
(Search for the truth beneath people's words.)
To: jonestown
Next month I, a Texas CHL holder, must travel to
Illinois, the Land of Dread.
Unnngh.
4
posted on
01/25/2005 4:09:22 PM PST
by
Tarpaulin
(Look it up.)
To: jonestown
This person is spouting a load of claptrap.
I WANT the laws he's objecting to, and so do the majority of Americans.
If it were not possible to pass a law to outlaw kiddie porn, for example, it would continue to exist. How does that serve the interests of our citizenry?
I am not personally in favor of legalizing drugs.
There are some criminal laws that are enhanced by uniformity, and thus I support the right of Congress to pass them.
5
posted on
01/25/2005 4:09:43 PM PST
by
Middle-O-Road
(In favor of blowing all terrorists to China, via other hotter places where they'll linger a while.)
To: jonestown
I've been saying for years now that we need to have a Constitutional Convention once again, to review the US Code. All codes found not to be in compliance with the Constitution should be rescinded.
Unfortunately, when Congress finds that it cannot pass a law they merely pass a regulation. If Congress doesn't pass one or the other, then we still have the judiciary who now writes their own laws.
6
posted on
01/25/2005 4:13:39 PM PST
by
datura
(Destroy The UN, the MSM, and China. The rest will fall into line once we get rid of these.)
To: jonestown
We have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property that cannot be prohibited by Amendment. Bear in mind that all of those rights are qualified in the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment.
No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - 5th Amendment
No State shall [...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [...] - 14th Amendment
That's not to say that I don't agree that the Commerce Clause has been abused beyond all recognition. I simply think it's important to understand that the Constitution qualifies many of the rights that it enumerates.
To: Middle-O-Road
I am not personally in favor of legalizing drugs. I am of the opposite opinion. I believe that most people are smart enough to make up their own minds about whether or not they will do drugs and the law is no deterrence to most of the population. The injustices done in the name of the WOD and the numerous powers that the federal government has granted itself far outweigh the benefits, not to mention the lives and freedoms lost.
The WOD is a complete, total, and utter failure, just like Prohibition was but at least we had the sense to repeal the 18th Amendment and let the states decide how to handle alcohol sales themselves. When was the last time two liquor distributors had a shootout over territory? It was just before Prohibition was lifted.
I agree to the destructiveness of illegal drugs, but they are no more destructive than alcohol and the vast majority of people CAN make the right decision.
8
posted on
01/25/2005 4:26:19 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
I disagree. I think if drugs were legalized, a whole lot more people would be addicted.
There are so many problems attached to that that I don't even want to think about it.
9
posted on
01/25/2005 4:29:27 PM PST
by
Middle-O-Road
(In favor of blowing all terrorists to China, via other hotter places where they'll linger a while.)
To: Whitehawk; Rumwarthor
the basic principles of our Constitution cannot be materially changed or 'amended away'.
We have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property that cannot be prohibited by Amendment.
1 jones
Perhaps not by Amendment, but definitely by judiciary. There is the greatest threat to liberty and property rights.
2 Whitehawk
.and a threat to life if you just happen to be unborn.
3 Rumwarthor
All three branches of our Fed & State
governments are ignoring our Constitution. - So are a lot of fanatical people.
- They ALL are convinced that a 'democratic' moral majority rules..
Contrary to the clear words of our Republics founding documents.
10
posted on
01/25/2005 4:34:03 PM PST
by
jonestown
( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
To: Whitehawk
Perhaps not by Amendment, but definitely by judiciary. There is the greatest threat to liberty and property rights.Until I came to FR, I had no idea how right you are about that.
11
posted on
01/25/2005 4:36:06 PM PST
by
exnavychick
(There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
To: Middle-O-Road; jonestown
"I WANT the laws he's objecting to, and so do the majority of Americans. "
Yes, but this sort of legislation was supposed to be done by the several states, under their power to regulate for the common welfare, public safety, and morals -- the so called "police power." What the original author is driving at is that the problem is not what is being regulated so much as who is doing the regulating.
12
posted on
01/25/2005 4:44:39 PM PST
by
Altamira
(Get the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN!)
To: Middle-O-Road
We survived the first 150 years of our Republic pretty good without a lot of 'laws' prohibiting guns, drugs, or porn. We coped with fairly reasonable state & local regulations until the time of the 18th Amendment.
Why do you insist on such prohibitions on our liberties now? What's changed?
13
posted on
01/25/2005 4:45:30 PM PST
by
jonestown
( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
To: Middle-O-Road
Let me ask you a question: Are we adults or are we children who cannot be trusted and must turn over authority of our lives to others?
14
posted on
01/25/2005 4:51:14 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Middle-O-Road
P.S. If there are so many problems, then why was Prohibition repealed? I'll tell you, because the problems involved and the freedoms and lives lost living in a police state were jus tnot worth it.
15
posted on
01/25/2005 4:52:30 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: datura
I don't see that a Convention is needed.
Individual States still have the Constitutional power to defy the Feds and demand [in court] that "All codes found not to be in compliance with the Constitution should be rescinded".
All it would take would be one..
16
posted on
01/25/2005 4:53:10 PM PST
by
jonestown
( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
To: Question_Assumptions
We have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property that cannot be prohibited by Amendment.
Bear in mind that all of those rights are qualified in the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment.
Prohibitions are not reasonable regulations, using due process of law. -- They are banns on some guns, & 'wars' on drugs, and attempts to legislate morality.
17
posted on
01/25/2005 5:02:54 PM PST
by
jonestown
( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
To: Altamira
Middle-O-Road:
"I WANT the laws he's objecting to, and so do the majority of Americans. "
Yes, but this sort of legislation was supposed to be done by the several states, under their power to regulate for the common welfare, public safety,
and morals
-- the so called "police power."
What the original author is driving at is that the problem is not what is being regulated so much as who is doing the regulating.
Do you two really believe our Constitution gives our Fed, State or local legislators the police power to regulate our "morals"?
You want those bums dictating 'morals' to your kids? You want the courts backing them up in that assumed 'power'?
Mind boggling.
18
posted on
01/25/2005 5:15:55 PM PST
by
jonestown
( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
To: Middle-O-Road
I WANT the laws he's objecting to, and so do the majority of Americans. If it were not possible to pass a law to outlaw kiddie porn, for example, it would continue to exist. How does that serve the interests of our citizenry? As it says in my profile, I am pro-choice (up to the point of viability), yet I OPPOSE Roe vs. Wade - because I believe it unconstitutionally federalized an issue that should be left up to the states.
If the Federal government is finally forced to abide by the Constitution, it doesn't mean that kiddie-porn will be legal, only that it will not be a Federal crime.
For instance, as I understand it, there is no Federal law against murder (except of the President perhaps), yet murder is universally outlawed. The FBI can only become involved when a fugitive crosses a state line.
19
posted on
01/25/2005 5:40:52 PM PST
by
Da Bilge Troll
(The Compassionate Troll)
To: jonestown
Do you two really believe our Constitution gives our Fed, State or local legislators the police power to regulate our "morals"?It does not "delegate" this power to the Federal government, but, at least originally, the states could. Remember, some states actually had state religions once because the Constitution only prohibits that to the Federal government.
20
posted on
01/25/2005 5:44:54 PM PST
by
Da Bilge Troll
(The Compassionate Troll)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-213 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson