Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
Yes, there is. I look forward to the day when the SCOTUS allows such a case to be argued.
All right. For the fourth time, what are the cites that support your interpretation of the 14th A.? What gives you the confidence that the SCOTUS or an Circuit Court would decide your way?
Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"? Then why were these included:
"IV, 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
"I, 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
To term anti-slavery statues as 'prohibitive laws' is another example of specious wordplay.
So, you don't believe that anti-slavery statutes were prohibitions of owning slaves?
Paying taxes has long been part of the social contract between government and the governed. I'm not suggesting government is always wrong, or always bad, but rather, when government restricts, takes away, or otherwise legislates, it must have a sound, compelling, and Constitutional reason for doing so.
No, I am not pro-drug, yet.
It was frustrating that I had to suffer in pain because some loser abuses codine.
Then, Michael Graham spoke on his radio show that since the main ingredient in many OTC products like Sudafed is used to make methanfedamines(sp), congress is considering making these products to placed behind the counter.
I am getting sick of laws that require me to alter my life because someone had an adverse effect.
I resent having to pay extra for my television because it now has the V-Chip. My children are grown. I choose not to watch certain shows.
I resent that the state of Maryland restricts the purchase of firearms because someone is irresponsible and misuses them.
I resent having a corner camera at every stop light.
I am all for certain interference, such as more thorough searches of luggage on airplanes, because a lack of security would welcome terrorists.
Article [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.
Your interpretation of this amendment is the most obtuse I have ever heard.
You need to get out and hear more.. Check out Barnett's:
The Rights Retained by The People
Address:http://www.randybarnett.com/rightsbypeople.html
I hope you realize you are not a strict constructionist. Your position would hand all states' authority over to the whims of unelected federal judges who can arbitrarily decide which laws are "reasonable".
Not at all. The powers of Fed judges are checked & balanced [ideally] by the other branches of both fed & state governments, and ultimately by the people acting through juries or civil disobedience.
This ideal is not working because it has been corrupted by our political system, with its various prohibitive 'wars on liberties'.
I will concede that prohibition is proof that the federal government does not have constitutional authority, without an amendment, to prohibit drugs. It is a states' right - subject to their respective constitutions.
And State constitutions are subject to the "Law of the Land". Reread Article VI as to "any Thing in the laws or Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I would support a constitutional amendment restricting drugs, but would prefer a change of cultural and political climate that would permit it to be handed back to the states.
The States already have the power to restrict by reasonably regulating, -- and the power to ignore unconstitutional Federal 'laws'. They only lack the political will to do so.
I agree with that.
It's what I call a LOSING issue.
I'm pretty sure those that want to legalize recreational drugs share many of the same common goals with satan.
The downfall of man...
In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.
Fine, you argue that they did have that 'right'. I can't dispute your right to believe that, repugnant as it is to our Constitutions principles.
I don't know why you are having a hard time distinguishing between my critiquing your ideas, and being an advocate against them. Of course I don't support slavery, but that does not change the fact that it was legal under the Constitution, regardless of being morally and ethically abhorrent.
So you claim that your argument is solely a critique? Yet you conclude by arguing that slavery was a 'legal' right. Fine, play your word games.
Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"?
I asked if you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist. - You answered:
In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure those that want to legalize recreational drugs share many of the same common goals with satan.
The downfall of man.
I'm pretty sure those that want to criminalize/prohibit various items of property & liberties share many of the same common goals with socialists .
The downfall of the Republic.
Pro vice and crime or it's the downfall of the Republic?
ROTFLMAO
Oh, that doesn't sound like anarchists at all ""Sarcasm Off""
The downfall of man...
You know, we can always count on you to bring so much to this particular discussion. You really are a simpleton, aren't you . . .
Oh, you envision Christ blessing you with the sign of the cross as you self medicate with dangerous drugs and destroy yourself and others. DREAM ON!
You are with the dark side with the illegal drug use for recreation.
Sure, the Hallmark CHannel, every night at 7pm and 8pm EST.
Also, Conan O'Brien plays several bits from it.
Quiet, junior . . . the adults are trying to have a nice discussion.
Your trying to play dress up on a conservative board.
There is nothing shy of being an anarchist if you are for recreational drug use.
Pro's get into "vice & crime" because the prohibitions make them extremely lucrative.
Our republic is in danger because individual liberties are being prohibited, along with the 'evil' items like guns & drugs.
Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?
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.