Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
I can only conclude that you are channelling FDR.
I have never seen such a smarmy rationale for the abuse of the Constitution as you present.
So how's Eleanor?
Can't say the same about drugs, now can you?
When it says "Congress shall make no law" is it an extremist view to understand the constitution to actually mean that Congress shall make no law? Why a document written in the English language actually needs interpretation is beyond me.
When the constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, for example, a thousand constitutional attornies dance on the head of a pin to explain why my right to keep and bear arms may be infringed after all.
In my humble opinion, this is the root of our downfall. Not pot smoking. The root of our downfall is that we have been taught that the constitution means only what legal experts tell us it means, in the face of plain language.
Libertarian's believe in the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. Such principles, if implimented, would lead to a loosening of ethical and moral standards and that would lead to social chaos and eventual anarchy.
Libertarian's support the legalization of drugs and prostitution, the dismantling of America's criminal justice system and military armed forces and they support unrestricted trade and immigration. These policies are extreme and again, if implimented, would be disasterous for all Americans. It clearly demonstrates that libertarian's don't have a clue about politics, or governing. The libertarian agenda is supported by less then 1/2% of voting Americans, thereby assuring, they will never have a voice at the table of government. Until libertarians abandon this extremist agenda, they won't ever win any significant elections and they will never hold the reigns of power and influence in America. In addition, the Libertarian Party supports abortion rights, which is clearly not a traditional American value.
America's national drug control policy is here to stay. These drugs are harmful substances and have no place in society. Anyone who has followed the government's drug control efforts over the last 20 years knows what the real facts are. While there has been steady use of illegal drugs by adolescents throughout the 1990s adn into the 21st century, overall drug use in America has been significantly reduced in the last two decades. The decreases in illegal drug use, can be directly traced to successful efforts by law enforcement and through increases in tough sentencing measures by our criminal justice system. Our national drug control policy has been successful and Americans believe intervention and incareration are still the primary steps at reducing drug abuse .
Translation...'legal experts' = 'lawyers'
'Nuff said.
Oh, and Franklin...er 'Reagan Man', how's Fala? ...Oh, that's right...all dogs go to Heaven. Sorry for asking.
I'm no advocate of drug abuse, no matter what misguided notions you have, but I'm also no advocate of the government creating and enforcing vice laws between consenting adults. This not a theocracy and you don't have a right to have the government enforce your brand of morality. You may not be concerned about the peripheral issues of losing Constitutional rights in the process of eradicating drugs, but I am. I resent that you are willing to turn over your rights as well as others' in the hope of increased security.
Why is it that parents and private groups have failed so miserably in keeping kids off of drugs? Can we blame the government for that somehow?
I note that your essay treats a soft drug more harshly and misleadingly than it does hard drugs. All in all, a very good ad for the hard drug alcohol industry.
I took that to mean that alcohol is by your defintion a "hard drug". My question was hence, if you believe that, then what intoxicant aside from pot would you purport to be soft?
If I misunderstood you, my apologies. I was on drugs at the time...LOL. Advil...Diet Dr. Pepper...
I only have time to deal with some of your comments over my lunchtime. I hope to address others later.
I think its fair to say, we agree on a few points. Americans are subject to excessive taxation and the federal...
I don't see how you can "agree" with me that the taxation is "excessive," unless you agree with me that the federal government is acting outside the Constitution. If the federal government is acting within the Constitution, all our federal taxes are "necessary and proper" per Article I, Section 8. I only think federal taxation is "excessive" because I think the federal government is acting outside the Constitution. (And not just a little bit outside either. In my opinion, fully 80-90+% of what the federal government does is outside the Constitution.)
According to you, everything is lost, period.
Well, we are no longer governed by the rule of law. That is an inescapable conclusion, if one thinks, as I do, that 80-90+% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. (Including, specifically, ALL federal laws and regulations regarding ALL drugs.) Now, whether we can return to the rule of law is an interesting question. (Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times.") And in my opinion, the United States is actually headed AWAY from the rule of law, rather than towards it. But I'm an optimist. As long as there is a Libertarian Party in the United States, there's hope. :-) Or, if things get really bad, I could move to Costa Rica, where Libertarians have more than 10% of the seats in their Congress. :-)
The Constitution has been trashed,...
Of course it has. Once again, this is an inescapable conclusion, if one thinks that 80-90+% of what the federal government does violates the Constitution.
...the government is filled with idiots,
That is my charitable assessment. I'll address this later.
the American people are a bunch of foolish, idiotic sheeple,...
Well, certainly scores of millions of them are. But I should have included the thought that a great many others (possibly even a majority of The People) are simply "rationally ignorant." It's actually "rationally ignorant" for one to not worry if the federal government is ILLEGALLY taking 25% of one's income...if the costs of getting the federal government to stop doing that exceed the amount one could expect to recover.
...President Bush is a corrupt tyrant
Well, he could simply be an idiot. I ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. ;-) Maybe he can't read the Constitution, or any of the supporting literature. Still, one would hope/expect that he'd have someone on his staff who could read and explain the Constitution to him. :-/
...and I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do.
That's certainly true vis-a-vis whether or NOT (my emphasis) the federal government can legitimately criminalize drugs under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. Once again, if you think that it's possible for the federal government to LEGITIMATELY criminalize any drug, under the Constitution, please explain to me why the 18th Amendment was (or wasn't) necessary to criminalize alcohol.
I don't think you can do that. That's why you're wrong, and I'm right (regarding federal criminalization of drugs).
Other practices based on custom and usage have become practically unassailable and have been recognized as valid extensions of Constitution interpretation: political parties, procedures for nominating presidential candidates, the electoral college system, the appointment of a presidential cabinet.
???? Why do you bring up all those things? When have I ever criticized those things as being unconstitutional? What about federal criminalization of drugs? THAT'S not "unassailable"...because it quite clearly VIOLATES the Constitution (absent a constitutional amendment, such as the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol).
Your absolute view of the Constitution, isn't consistent with the view of other American's.
These "other Americans"...they'd be the "foolish, idiotic" (or rationally ignorant) "sheeple"? Yes, I'm (painfully!) aware that my (correct) view of the Constitution isn't "consistent" with theirs.
If the Founding Fathers were around today and were presented with the facts of events, covering the last 225 years, I don't think many of them, would side with you.
Of the 55 Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution, I'm reasonably sure that 54 of them would largely agree with my interpretation of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton probably wouldn't, but I never liked him anyway. ;-)
Now, that may be somewhat presumptuous on my part, but whose to say I'm wrong and whose to say you're right.
That's not presumptuous at all...to ask "who can say" that you're wrong and I'm right. In fact, I wouldn't consider it terribly presumptuous for YOU to say, "I'm right, and you're wrong." You'd be wrong, but not presumptuous. (You really ought to answer my question about the 18th amendment before you make any claim that you're right, and I'm wrong.)
Oops. Lunchtime is over.
That's an easily provable falsehood.
Why is it that some of you feel the need to make false statments and innuendos to make your points.
IMO, points that one has to lie to make aren't worth making.
I mentioned twice on this thread, the constitutional and legal aspects of America's drug control policy. I guess you didn't see them. Here they are again, for your benefit.
America's current national drug control policy, is part of the National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 and is based on the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. There is nothing unconstitutional about this policy. Link here to the CSA of 1970 and link here to the USSC decision, Tobey v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) that supports the CSA of 1970.
The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).
There's one LITTLE problem with that. Alcohol is a narcotic. ("Narcotic" from the root, "numbing.") See my post #172.
You're right it's not arguable. It's unconstitutional, per the 10th Amendment. That's why a constitutional amendment was required to criminalize alcohol.
Or how a person can have cash confiscated from him, again without arrest, trial or conviction of crime, if the amount equals or exceeds whatever amount Congress deems unnaceptable just because the money might be from or intended for use in a crime?
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.