Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Actually I wasn't referring to the Federal Government but libertarian hubris blinded you to that fact. If you read what I wrote again you will note that I think the drug question is a question left to the states and municipalities.
As for legislating morality, thats the only thing we do legislate.
We have a CONSTITUTION which clearly and in easy-to-read language (so any average sixth grader can understand it) delineates what Government may do. The list is VERY SHORT. And laws may be enacted ONLY WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS, period. Anything beyond that causes government to trespass into forbidden territory.
.
.
...But I doubt it.
No kiddin? Whats your experience with condescending pricks who answer questions with questions?
The fact of the matter is that my question is, quite obviously, an answer to your question, which you have failed to respond to. But take heart, I've yet to squeeze anything but cheeky bad manners out of a prohibitionist when actually pressed to defend their slimy communist opinions in the arena of reason and evidence. Why should you be an exception?
We legislate all kinds of things that have absolutely no moral implications whatsoever.
And yet, that is precisely the point of a Constitutionally limited Republic. That a principled elite, who do understand the fundamental laws of our land, and why they are the way they are, shall maintain the contract as initially penned. That is the entire point of the bi-cameral college, the separation of powers, the establishment of two legislative bodies, the nix on a federal standing army, and, indeed, most of the "plumbing" sections of the Constitution.
2.As for legislating morality, thats the only thing we do legislate.
Oh, really? You failed to make clear the level to which you referred, so, as the article dealt with FedGov, anyone's natural inclination would be the presumption that we were all singing from the same sheet.
WRT your second point, you are DEAD WRONG. Morality is what an INDIVIDUAL practices. LAW is enacted to govern the interactions between INDIVIDUALS. It has NO relationship to morality. If it does, the age-old question always arises: whose morality and who decides, so you are right back where you started. Morality is the SOLE province of individuals, families and churches, not government. "MORALITY" is what the TALIBUNNIES had, and it was the INEVITABLE result of mixing morals and laws.
After? That would be 2003. ...That's a mighty long run you'll be taking. Say hi to Forest, Forest Gump. ;-)
Happy New Year and stay safe.
Cognitive dissonance defined.
Nope. -- You are just using high sounding weasel words as a tar baby statement. Silly & meaningless rhetoric.
Legislatures legislate morality agreeable to we the people and call them laws. They proscribe penalties for breaking those laws and after due process you do the time for the crime. In complete accord with the constitution.
A pronouncement on your part, not an argument. -- Read the 14th, it is a clear denial of such lawmaking power to states.
---------------------------------------
So yes, JW, it is both immmoral & unconstitutional for your peers to criminalize non violent behavior.
It is neither and I find you and others just as dangerous to my rights as the left. If you could assume power you would rule by fiat and the people be damned. Liberty works both ways, the difference is that I understand the notion of pursuing happiness and you don't. Sort of the difference between a spoiled child and an adult.
On the contrary, it is your empty, underlined words that are like those of a child.
------------------------------------------
You may however, volunteer to belong to a community, and regulate each others lives to your hearts petty desires, upon pain of banishment. - Just buy into a condo type association, and enjoy.
I hate to be the one to break this to you but its not me who will be joining a cult, its you. And I wish you well in your pursuit.
Yep. - Devastating rejoiner if your mental age is 12.
I agree, with one slight but important distinction. Watch yourself. Please don't let the "we" slip into your wording when you know it doesn't belong. It's an important distinction. They are parasitical elite. We allowed them to get away with using us as the host.
The biggest moral right they legislate against is the highest moral and human right -- the right to self-defense. 20,000 immoral and unconstitutional gun laws are evidence of that. The proof is in the statistics.
What a gem this is. Do the Dred Scott findings of 1838 re-instate slavery? In the law, the Founding Clause is trumps over anything, the Bill of Rights is trumps over the individual clauses of the Constitution, and the Constitution is trumps over everything else. Regulations stand very low in this hierarchy, and findings even lower. When it comes to foundations and justification, the law flows downhill from the Declaration of Independence, through the constitution, not uphill, and particularly, not uphill from regulations that weren't even penned by Congress.
the CSA findings are the Congress's excuse not to intervene and make the the DEA follow the CSA law as it had been previously laid out. It hasn't the force of law at all, it doesn't even have the force of a judicial finding, much less the Constitutional.
Nor does it stand up to the light of honesty and wide-scope accounting. From which all valid law nullifies bad law.
Now we can all wait for that one line nonsense zinger of a retort from roscoe.
The catch 22 being, of course, that the subject of these verboten topics are only known to those who use the axe.
Do you think there's any chance we might be able to get some cheese with those Drivel McNuggets, it being a holiday and all?
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.