Replies

[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.

When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,

I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.

perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).

I had to bludgeon you to admit any of them actually existed.

No, that was your lack of clear communication.

I have yet to see a conservative interpretation that supports federal laws on intrastate drug matters. (It's in no way conservative to support the FDR court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effects" test - which gave us the vast majority of today's federal welfare state.)

[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.

When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,

I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.

You love to throw around the 'clearly unconsititonal' term. In certain circumstances, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Let's be truthful about it though. None of these laws have been taken to the SCOTUS and proven to be what you say they are. So in actuality, you have FReepers coming here to voice support for the laws on our nation's books. Until they are taken before the SCOTUS and proven to be unconstitutional, it is inaccurate for you label folks as backing unconstitutional laws. It is your thought that they are, but you haven't made your case before the SCOTUS. Thus speacking in absolutes is a misrepresentation.

You may suspect that I have committed murder. Many folks may agree. In the eyes of the law, I am still not a murderer until I am charged, evidence is weighed, and a jury of my peers has found me gulity. Your hypotheticals may be accurate. I may agree with you on some of them. That doesn't make these things unconstitutional until they are addressed and judged to be.

perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).

If you don't care about your credibility with me, why are you still trying to beat this dead horse? Why would you even respond to my comments about your credibility if you didn't care about my take on your credibility?

I said specifically (and you even copied and pasted it here), When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too, perhaps you’ll have a little more credibility with me.

Okay, lets address your comments at the beginning of this post. Look at what you posted above. Please point out to me even one SPECIFIC law that you disagree with. I don't think you can do it. You tossed out the complete Welfare State as an example of specific law. Thats about as precise as naming the Titanic when you're asked to provide a specific case of improper care of violyns.

If you're not willing to be specific, how can you sit there typing away saying you have already shown me what other laws you disagree with? And I had to pester you post after post before you would even admit that there was a category of laws out there of a similar status as our 'Drug' laws.

I had to bludgeon you to admit any of them actually existed.

No, that was your lack of clear communication.

No it wasn't. I tried to end this on a cordial note with you, but we both know that isn't true.

Please link me to where you first admitted that other laws with the same status as our 'Drug' laws existed

Then I would appreciate it if you would link me to where you first mentioned another law by specific name that you disagreed with.