Addicted to the Drug War

Your moronic, sophomoric "replies" are not signs of intelligence, either. So what's the difference? The difference is that some people want the government to ONLY do what it is authorized by the Constitution to do and others, of your ilk, the Billy Jeff Clintoon crowd, want to use that same document to wipe your a$$es. I figure that if you are fortunate enough to live thru puberty you MIGHT develop some sense, but I do have my doubts. On both counts, given your attitude here. In person you are either a wuss or the schoolyard bully.

Hmmmm, I would bet on the wuss because, hiding behind your anonimity you can indulge your Walter Mitty dreams and hiding behind your JBTs you can indulge your bloodlust, both without fear of REAL LIFE involvement... Yeah, Roscoe the WUSS.... the statist who's afraid to open his mouth face to face, because someone might DISLIKE you. Coward.

...some people want the government to ONLY do what it is authorized by the Constitution...

Pretense.

To: dcwusmc
...some people want the government to ONLY do what it is authorized by the Constitution...
Pretense.
2082 posted on 2/1/02 12:10 AM Pacific by Roscoe

Your reply is light years beyond my comprehension. Your vast intellect has overwhelmed my defences. I am AWED by the stunning depths of your mind. So explain your answer so that the rest of us can understand it. What is pretense about wanting the basic and supreme law of the land OBEYED by its biggest and only violator, the GOVERNMENT? Or is it that you think that only behaviours of which YOU approve should be protected? In which case, explain Roe v Wade. Abortion should be a STATE matter, where it can be disposed of properly, yet in clear violation of the Constitution it is deemed a FEDERAL matter. Victim Disarmament is prohibited by the Second Amendment, yet YOUR feds have THOUSANDS of unconstitutional laws on the books which violate it. And more are on the way.

No, troll, the pretense is on YOUR side of the issues, not mine. Tell your masters that you are no longer an effective troll and disruptor and you need to be replaced.

BLOAT

MOLON LABE

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees!

FMCDH

The Constitition isn't Libertarian doctrine.

So? When did this occur? Actually, I don't really care. I am talking from the Restorationist standpoint, not the libertarian. ALthough the two are quite close in many regards, especially in defending the Constitution.

I think this applies to you and your drug-warrior ilk as much as to the people on the thread it was posted to:
The funny thing is that by resorting to coercion you are tacitly admitting the poverty of your position or at least your impotence to persuade others to the rightness of your cause. Once again, inside the framework of consent why should people be forced to behave in ways which they cannot be freely persuaded?
68 posted on 2/1/02 12:23 PM Pacific by ICU812

HERE

1789.

Which means what to me? Besides being the year of the Constitution....

The Constitition isn't Libertarian doctrine.

On what exactly do you base this comment (besides your posterior)?

Read 'em.

Yeah, ok. If there's a cogent one, maybe you can just tell me the number.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Funny, I see nothing in that list about Congress having the power to ban or outlaw substances of ANY sort, do you? If so, which one? And don't tell me it's the ICC or I will track you down and barf on your keyboard.

21 USCS Section 801 (1996)

Section 801. Findings and declarations

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--

(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.

(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.

(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.

(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.

(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.

Sounds like the Congress can constitutionally ban any substance, as long as it justifies the ban in the name of General Welfare, and uses the mechanism of "control of interstate commerce."

Read the findings.

Summarize them in reference to my point.

Heroin isn't milk.

Congress apparently could constitutionally ban milk if it found it harmful to the General Welfare and used the commerce clause to control it.

No such finding. Black isn't white, even without a bright line.

No such finding yet, but not constitutionally barred.