Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Sure there is.. read the 14th for one example. Of course our form of Government is fit for moral men.. and no other.
If you toss it to the dogs, then yes.. anything becomes possible.
Dead wrong. The legislative process normally involves extensive hearings and weighing of evidence from different sources and interests, Ayn Rand's pulp fiction notwithstanding.
No quote, naturally.
Keep digging that hole.
LOL! Name a single Senator or Congressman who voted on the patriot act who read it first.
Depends on the right at issue.
"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By a universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
No no no..
They have the same right's here that you and I have..
But, you already knew that.. This is merely a distraction.
I understand what you're trying to say. But, even if I agreed with you, I contend that the mere existence of a power is not a valid enough reason to exercise it or justify its exercise. This was the premise behind the Nuremberg trials. If the power subjugates rights then the power should be questioned, not the rights.
Trick question. You don't have a quote from Miller that supports your position.
You have been claiming that the State may infringe upon rights unless specifically prohibited by...what?
The people of the state do not have the right to decide who drives school busses?
Nope.
States have no rights at all. All of their powers are derived from the people. And the people may not confer any power to the states OR the feds that they do not first posess.
Don't insult me.. you know better than this.
We are all protected by the Constitution. (more specifically, the BOR) And that Constitution mentions the right of the states to outlaw pot exactly nowhere.
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson
You don't have a quote from Miller that supports your position. Do you?
However, it also conveys no power to put up stop signs.. run the schools.. zoning.. etc.
States have no right to these things?
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.