Your Attention Please [Breaking News and WoD Flamewars]

[AdA$tra]

HERE IS A BREAKING NEWS ITEM: The Texas lady who accidently ran over her hubby three times: GUILTY

[bvw]

We can then assume -- the most reasonable assumption -- that these laws weren't tested, that the Prohibition Amendment superceded any test of them. This is reasonable -- the only reasonable assumption -- due the short time between when these laws were passed and the passage of the Prohibition.

[swarthyguy]

Don't bogart that thread, my friend, pass it over to me!

[AdA$tra]

eeeeeere!

[Eagle Eye]

They both sound like such fun ....

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

[robertpaulsen]

Even with proof....

The Controlled Substances Act (current anti-drug laws) was passed in 1970. It has been constitutionally tested in different federal courts numerous times. It has been been found constitutional unanimously.

Despite this, the drug legalization crowd still insists that the CSA is unconstitutional. So much for the validity of "testing".

So, please forgive me if I don't waste my time proving something to you or anyone else just to be brushed off.

If you want to take the time to document a case, I'll listen.

[TomServo]

This is funny. The Admin Moderator starts a flame war.

[Roscoe]

Every WOD thread goes the same way. You present the law and the facts, the other side responds with falsehoods and flames.

[swarthyguy]

>>The Texas lady who accidently ran over her hubby three times:

That would tend to break a person's bones/nyuk nyuk!

[Billthedrill]

Yeah, and the guys doing it can't seem to help it. Kinda makes ya wonder who it is that's addicted to what, don't it?

Personally, I try to keep all of my posts cordial and civil. Not like the rest of you miserable, carping commie pinheads.

[robertpaulsen]

Exactly right. No matter how much you present in the way of cites, proof, references, documented law, etc., the response is always the same, "But it's unconstitutional".

Pathetic, actually.

[TomServo]

</i>Not like the rest of you miserable, carping commie pinheads.</i>Hey! Who you callin' miserable?

[Roscoe]

An article you might enjoy:

http://federalreview.com/Winston.htm

[jayef]

I've seen him. You should take back the invitation.

[tpaine]

I'd love to hear a reasoned, well-intentioned, conservative-based argument in favor of the Drug War. I haven't heard one yet.

Me neither.

Me three
And, - I doubt we ever will, seeing that there are no reasoned, well-intentioned, conservative-based arguments in favor of the Drug War, that can stand up to logical, constitutional scrutiny.

[jayef]

Your law is wrong. Your facts are wrong.

[CWOJackson]

A threat? No way. I just like the way you like to invoke the posts of other people then run and refuse to discuss the issue. I know talking behind people's backs is the way you like to operate; don't be surprised when they challenge you.

I'll be seeing you around. Feel free to quote me behind my back any time...and don't be surprised when I show up. Later Tootsy.

[Roscoe]

stand up to logical, constitutional scrutiny.

Every court that has ever heard the issue disagrees with you.

No matter how much you present in the way of cites, proof, references, documented law, etc., the response is always the same, "But it's unconstitutional".

-- robertpaulsen

[MrLeRoy]

The Controlled Substances Act [...] has been constitutionally tested in different federal courts numerous times. It has been been found constitutional unanimously.

The Roe v Wade ruling passes the same test; color me unimpressed.

[jayef]

Well that settles it then. Due to your considerable legal credentials, we defer to your judgement in these matters. Please, oh lawgiver, tell us exactly which laws you think are just and which are not. We can do away with the Supreme Court and with state laws now that you have spoken.