Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Weasel words there Roscoe, weasel words. You would do Bill Clinton proud.
Which says nothing remotely like the contention that the regulatory and taxation powers of Congress would not encompass the power to prohibit.
Congress prohibited the sale of untaxed whiskey when George Washington was President.
Yep, until you answer it or admit that the federal government, in accordance with the Constitution, cannot prohibit a thing.
Where is it enumerated that the federal government may prohibit a thing? Not regulate, not tax, prohibit.
Remember, Roscoe. Limited and enumerated powers.
I have spent my life in this field. Legalization of drugs would reduce the crime rate in America by at least 50%; many estimate as much as 80%. You simply have no idea how the WOD has affected this society, and are either making money from the WOD and will therefore never change your opinion, or are a Christian who doesn't understand the Gospel, or are just plain ignorant. You never rebut the arguments put forth by your opponents. You make up straw men like the subsidies issue and then knock them down, and act like you have accomplished something. Only one legitimate argument exists for non-legalization--that it would increase consumption. If you can successfully make that argument, then there might be something to discuss, although the costs of the WOD might still be too great. However, consumption of hard drugs has not gone up in countries where it has been legalized or "ignored." Rather, people have more readily turned to treatment as they were removed from the underworld since they could obtain their drug at a reasonable price and therefore hold down normal fulltime jobs and begin to regain their self-respect. Soon, meeting and falling in love, etc. , they want to be clean so that they can move on, build families, etc. But you are too narrow minded and full of hate to read such studies. One has to love the truth, and freedom, and one's country, and one's fellow man, in order to go so far as to search out and find the real facts about the WOD. One so flippant as you, to throw out such accusations as that I am arguing for subsidizing the addicts habit, when I made no mention of anything like that, and when you are well aware from many previous posts that bringing down the price of drugs is fundamental to the position of the anti-WOD people, has no concern for the truth.
This bears on the reason so many of the founders were concerned that the Bill of Rights would create confusion among the people and jurors alike. It is clear that it has created this confusion, both in you and in the author of this decision. You see the Bill of Rights is a list of things Congress "may not" do. So it has created the feeling that congress can do anything that it is not prohibited to. The ninth and tenth amendment were intended to be sure this would not be a confusion, but it obviously did not work for many.
Our early Congress prohibited its sale, they smashed the stills in which it was manufactured, and they confiscated and destroyed the whiskey itself.
You've embraced an absurd falsehood regarding prohibition, and have no credible authority to back the meritless assertion.
Where did it come from? Where did you hear it?
Limited and enumerated, Roscoe. Limited and enumerated. If it does not specifically say they have a power, they do not have the power.
An invention, without a named source.
At least identify your source. Where did you hear it?
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.
So people have no free will to pass laws against rape? robbery? murder? lying? cheating? Sez who?
Baseless cliche.
Jefferson supported anti-sodomy laws, and most of the states had them.
Exactly how does this advance our discussion? Perhaps it does--at least you are acknowledging that there's something about the Constitution that prohibits the government from doing something.
Your contention that free-basing the snot out of the Commerce Clause, such that sharing a marijuana plant becomes inter-state commerce, doesn't threaten every other right we have is laughable. It is no step at all from that to regulating how many bullets I can own, because I had to buy them.
R> Baseless cliche.
No, but it sure sounded convincing when the Marxist professors were standing up in front of our future leaders proselytizing their moral-liberalism onto everyone else.
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.