Replies

Society "collectively decides" abatements in socialistic states, not in our Constitutional Republic.

You are mistaken. In a Constitutional Republic, society collectively makes its decisions through elections of people to represent us.

The People (i.e. the collective society) elect representatives. The reps create laws, each of which abates unfettered action in some way. The judiciary tries citizens according to these laws. That is due process.

There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.

And is therefore reserved to the States: "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." So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws. Further, if any drug is transported across state lines for commercial purpose, it would Constitutionally fall under the Commerce Clause, and the power of Congress to regulate.

Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

I cannot find the phrase "reasonably regulate" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments. Whom or what do you quote?

You are treading on thin ice, the whole collective and society stuff you are talking about is right from the commie manifesto. Do you really want to continue down this path, collectively and societally?

The Constitutution's 14th Amendment makes clear that no law shall abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

Society "collectively decides" abatements in socialistic states, not in our Constitutional Republic.

You are mistaken. In a Constitutional Republic, society collectively makes its decisions through elections of people to represent us.

But the 'decisions' made must be Constitutional. Outright prohibitions violate our basic constitutional liberties.

The People (i.e. the collective society) elect representatives. The reps create laws, each of which abates unfettered action in some way.

Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.

The judiciary tries citizens according to these laws. That is due process.

-- Not so, as due process must also be followed in framing the laws. The judiciary has the duty to strike down unconstitutional prohibitive laws that violate due process.

There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.

And is therefore reserved to the States: "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." So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws.

Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.

Further, if any drug is transported across state lines for commercial purpose, it would Constitutionally fall under the Commerce Clause, and the power of Congress to regulate.

I would urge you to read Justice Thomas as to how that Clause is being abused.

Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

I cannot find the phrase "reasonably regulate" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments. Whom or what do you quote?

Common law & common legal usage. The police power of States is limited by 'reasonable restraints': IE, States are bound to support the US Constitution's restraints as the supreme 'law of the land'. See Article VI.