Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
Your pastor is wrong. The greek word for pharmaceuticals is pharmakeia. "Sorceries" is the Latin *sortiarius" and means "one who influences fate".
The Original Greek is the word "pharmakeia", as used in Revelations 9:21. According to: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1120847263-9821.html , the definition includes, "the use of drugs".
My pastor was not wrong.
Your thread would seem to indicate that you are.
It was frustrating that I had to suffer in pain because some loser abuses codine.
It would appear to me that you had to suffer in pain because you had a bad dentist, that was also forgetful.
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.
Most pharmacies already keep the above mentioned drugs behind the counter to deter theft.
I am getting sick of laws that require me to alter my life because someone had an adverse effect.
Seek to change the laws.
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.
No comment.
I resent that the state of Maryland restricts the purchase of firearms because someone is irresponsible and misuses them.
Agreed.
I resent having a corner camera at every stop light.
I have no problem with the cameras, besides they help the folks on CSI catch the bad guys.
I am all for certain interference, such as more thorough searches of luggage on airplanes, because a lack of security would welcome terrorists.
That is big of you.
One final word, seek a better dentist.
Do you realize that this is a circular definition? You are citing your understanding of the Constitution to support your understanding of the Constitution.
Obviously. The "some" powers are those reserved by the Constitution.
No, the power to infringe upon individual rights are clearly prohibited by the US Constitution --- States have no power to prohibit; this power is prohibited to them by the 14th. -- Get it?
No, because it is wrong. States cannot prohibit in a way that violates enumerated rights such as the right to bear arms. But states are limited by enumerated rights ---
Wrong again. Unenumerated rights are not to be denied. -- See the 9th.
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.
Now you retort:
Was the ownership of slaves as property allowed under the Constitution or not? Clearly it was.
Did some States totally prohibit slavery or not? Clearly they did.
Laws forbidding violations of human rights do not deny a "right to own" a human being. A State cannot prohibit a right that does not exist, just as they have no delegated power to prohibit rights that do exist.
Therefore, are total prohibitions of the ownership of classes of property allowed to be enacted by States, or not?
Absurd reduction. Human beings are "classes of property"? No, the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
Not one of the Framers contested a State's power do do so, that I can find. Indeed, they acknowledged it in Article IV, in the 3rd clause, which says slaves cannot avoid slavery by escaping into another jurisdiction where prohibitions exist.
It's understandable in that the founders were trying to hold together a shaky Republic by catering to slave owning autocrats. Why you want to argue for a 'right to own' human "classes of property" is beyond rational comprehension.
You sure are digging an amusing hole for yourself though.
You apparently have a great many problems with rational comprehension. Either that, or I must conclude that you are intentionally twisting my words. At no point did I argue for any such thing.
What I did argue was that States have the power to prohibit. I cited the prohibition of slavery by some States as an example of this power.
A State cannot prohibit a right that does not exist, ...
That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit. Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
"Article XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [bold added]
slav·er·y
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
No, the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.? Note that while it took an Amendment for the Federal Government to do this, States had done the same for some time.
That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.
How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].
Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.
"Article XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
AS we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.?
There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read. Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected.
Keep digging.
It seems to me that the real trouble here is your understanding of what a right or power is.
Your interpretation gives all government power to the federal government and none to states or local governments.
What difference does it make how long I've "been here"?
Is that supposed to convey some "special sense" of what conservatism is?
I don't care how long you've been here, in my opinion your just another faux conservative. People like you are the primary reason we have so many RINOS these days.
In truth, you're all for more government - you just want to be able to set the rules according to your own opinions.
Hey, you in favor of gun control too? Think most of the people here are?
As a point of fact, I don;t do drugs.
Apparently anyone who disagrees whith your view that our government has the right to tell private individuals what they can and cannot do is - to you - a "pinko".
Clearly you really don't have any understanding of that term.
How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].
That's because you have a habit of logical fallacy, among which is the tendency to define something with reference to the thing being defined.
You said it was a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property"... That is a declaration: prohibitions=abridgments. Now the 13th is a prohibition. It says slavery SHALL NOT exist, thereby PROHIBITING it. So, by your own unequivocal definition, the 13th, being a prohibition, MUST = abridgment.
You are the one that insists that all prohibitions are abridgments of "rights". Now here is a clear prohibition: neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Yet, you also say, "There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read." So, which assertion of yours is wrong?
You go on to try to explain your inconsistency with: "Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected." But the 13th A. is not a declaration of protection; it is a prohibition of an existing practice. If "anyone can read" it as a protection, why the need for the 14th A.?
I read it and agree with the major thrust of his argument about the nature of rights, but only with regard to federal powers.
Our constitutional rights are to be upheld by -all- empowered officials in the USA, fed/state or local. You need to reread Article VI, which you consistently ignore.
The two words "equal protection" of the 14th cannot be so easily construed to dissolve the retained unnamed powers of the states.
Who has claimed that?
-- Barnett claims that the 14th 'fundamentally changed' the ability of States to make laws abridging our rights to life, liberty or property without due process. He is correct.
The idea that states must show how each law is directly needed to protect a right just does not wash.
Laws cannot be written that abridge or infringe upon our rights. So says the 14th. -- You refuse to abide by the 14th? Fine.
In fact, this standard is not even a very good one for federal law. The test for federal law is whether it is Constitutionally authorized. The burden does fall on all levels of government to prove it has not violated an enumerated right.
Under the due process clause, that 'burden' is obvious. Laws written that violate our rights also violate due process.
For example, what right is protected by raising taxes?
Weird example. Who claims a 'right' is being violated? -- The governments power to tax is constitutionally enumerated. A violation of that power would violate the Constitution, not a human right.
The only argument, by your standard, is that taxation is a necessary evil. Well, guess what, anything can be called a necessary evil.
Again, weird.. You are arguing a position I haven't even made.
Taxation does not protect any specific enumerated or unenumerated right. It is, however, Constitutional because this power is specifically retained.
No kidding.
This power is also not prohibited to the individual states. This is why States can raise taxes, not because taxes protect rights.
Feel free to tell someone who thinks "taxes protect rights".
The power to punish crime does not protect rights directly. It is a power retained to the federal government for certain causes and not prohibited to the States. (Although there are limitations to this power.)
Tell someone who needs your lecture.
Barnett:
"As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war. Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right."
Not exactly. Federal government has the power to be sure that states protect each person within their respective jurisdictions equally. That means a state cannot make one set of laws for white people and another set for black people. It does not give federal government jurisdiction over rights and powers not enumerated. It only concerns equality.
-- All the privileges, immunities & rights to life, liberty, or property mentioned by the 14th are enforceable, according to its last clause.
-- But of course, you simply reject that concept. -- Have you ever sworn an oath to support the Constitution? -- Did that include support for the BOR's & the 14th?
That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.
How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].
That's because you have a habit of logical fallacy, among which is the tendency to define something with reference to the thing being defined.
Your unsupported opinion on my so-called 'logical fallacies' only makes your comments more redundant, and amusing.
Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.
"Article XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
As we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
That is a declaration: prohibitions=abridgments.
Of course it is. How redundant of you.
Now the 13th is a prohibition. It says slavery SHALL NOT exist, thereby PROHIBITING it.
An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, -- does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.
So, by your own unequivocal definition, the 13th, being a prohibition, MUST = abridgment.
That I made such a "definition" is YOUR logical fallacy, not mine. -- Amusing try though; - good bafflegab.
If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.?
There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read. Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected.
You said " As we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property."...
You are the one that insists that all prohibitions are abridgments of "rights".
There you go again, repeating.. Sigh.
Now here is a clear prohibition: neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Yet, you also say, "There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read." So, which assertion of yours is wrong?
Neither.
You go on to try to explain your inconsistency with: "Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected." But the 13th A. is not a declaration of protection; it is a prohibition of an existing practice.
"That is a tautology." -- In your own words.
If "anyone can read" it as a protection, why the need for the 14th A.?
Read the eras history. The 13th was ratified in 1865. -- And the human rights of exslaves were completely ignored by the south. This necessitated the ratification of the 14th, which made clear that States were required to obey the "Law of the Land" as outlined in Article VI.
Not exactly. Federal government has the power to be sure that states protect each person within their respective jurisdictions equally. That means a state cannot make one set of laws for white people and another set for black people. It does not give federal government jurisdiction over rights and powers not enumerated. It only concerns equality.
-- All the privileges, immunities & rights to life, liberty, or property mentioned by the 14th are enforceable, according to its last clause.
-- But of course, you simply reject that concept. -- Have you ever sworn an oath to support the Constitution? -- Did that include support for the BOR's & the 14th?
I reject your interpretation of the 14th to encompass unenumerated rights.
You are rejecting the fact that our Constitution demands [in Article VI] that sworn officials at every level support & defend our Constitution, notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary.. - State laws that would infringe on unenumerated rights as well as enumerated.
You come across as if disagreeing makes me unpatriotic.
If you've ever sworn such an oath, [and most of us have, in some capacity] then logically it included support for the BOR's & the 14th.
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.