Your Attention Please [Breaking News and WoD Flamewars]

[Admin Moderator]

Since my last vanity announcement on keywords went so swimmingly (it ended up with something like 5000 keywords added to it) I thought a great idea would be to throw some propane on some other fires with a vanity.

Breaking news is being abused again, big time. This goes in cycles, with sometimes people being responsible, but other times people not being very responsible.

We are in one of the not-very time periods.

Please, do not post something in Breaking News because you think it is something you want people to see. Place something in Breaking News only if it is

1. Something the networks would interrupt their programming to say,
2. The networks would interrupt their programming to say if they weren't overwhelmingly liberal,
3. Something that honestly would (not should, would) be of interest to majority of self-described conservatives
4. Official chapter announcements

Or things along those lines. Don't consider that a list of rules, but of guidelines. But act as if the guidelines matter, please. And flame the heck out of people that don't. And provide appropriate feedback to people who don't.

Some things that are never breaking news: Stories that have been posted before, stories that are over a day old, opinion vanities, freep this poll, or anything from the op-ed section of any newspaper.

Now, on to the WoD [War on Drugs] flamewars. There are a few problems with them. The flaming on them is tremendous. It is wrong for several reasons, and it should stop and the first thing we are going to do to try to get them to stop is to make a request for them to stop. If you feel the need to flame someone for something they say on one of these threads, do this (and yes, it involves a lot more work than just hitting reply, but such is life):

1. Post a copy of the article to the Smokey Backroom
2. Ping your flamee to that copy.
3. Go to town over there and keep the crap off the main forum.

Instead of hitting abuse on someone on a WoD thread right away (unless it is extremely bad), please just advise them to do what I am saying here- take it to the backroom. Link them to this if need be. And if you don't want to get into a flamewar, leave it at that. If you do, then join them in the backroom and have at it. The WoD flamewars overwhelm the latest posts page with a neverending sequence of posts that are just mindless insults. Please, spare us, and don't try to put it on the moderators to determine who fired the first shot. There are rarely clean hands here, and no matter what we do one side or another is going to complain.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Freeping. I expect no fewer than 500 taunts at us in the keywords here before this is over. Thank you, and God Bless. ;-)

[E Rocc]

There's one for the profile.

(Tanx. >:))

-Eric

[Roscoe]

No source for the real numbers since he won't file them

So your "countless millions" claim was a baseless fabrication.

[MrLeRoy]

The Supreme Court has traditionally taken a relatively lenient view of federal actions presented as wartime needs

From which it follows that legislative bans being found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime.

They also voted unanimously to uphold federal drug laws against the medical marijuana challenge.

While explcitly declining to consider Constitutional issues.

[tpaine]

Roscoe, -- the moderator has requested that personal barbs such as your claim of "fabrications" be taken to the Smokey Backroom.

[Roscoe]

While explcitly declining to consider Constitutional issues.

Because there was no constitutional question before it to resolve? There is no judicial conflict on that point for the USSC to settle, as EVERY court to visit the issue has upheld the CSA.

[robertpaulsen]

"The Supreme Court has traditionally taken a relatively lenient view of federal actions presented as wartime needs"

Excuse me, but I thought the criterion was for the law to be "tested" in a federal court and found constitutional. That's what bvw wanted.

Now you've kicked it up to the USSC? A law has to be "tested" by the USSC before it's "justifiable"?

Since when? I thought the USSC solved disputes between the lower courts (primarily). If there are no disputes, the USSC may never rule.

What are we, as citizens, to do? Can we use our own interpretation until that time and ignore the laws as unconstitutional? Or should we go with the lower court rulings?

[E Rocc]

The only way this will be achieved is if you simply ban those who support the ridiculous and highly immoral idea of drug legalization. That is absolutely NOT a conservative concept, and would therefore be better suited for a place other than FR.

"If adults want to take such chances [using marijuana], that is their business."
-Ronald Reagan, Radio commentary, August, 1979

"Of course dad was for legalization."
-Michael Reagan

"I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."
-William F. Buckley, Jr.

-Eric

[MrLeRoy]

"The Supreme Court has traditionally taken a relatively lenient view of federal actions presented as wartime needs"

A law has to be "tested" by the USSC before it's "justifiable"?

Non sequitur.

[EBUCK]

"Why coutless? Because the fed is above reporting as Nevada state law demands."

From my post #379, I made no claim to "know" how much of my money the man spent but I can easily guess that it was in the millions. And it was obviously in the countless catagory because the little crook won't fess up.

Baseless...not. Fabrication, obviously since he won't report his expenditures I have to work with the raw materials he can't hide.

[MrLeRoy]

Because there was no constitutional question before it to resolve?

No; "Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims [regarding underlying constitutional issues], we decline to do so in the first instance."

[robertpaulsen]

Then why, out of the blue, did you bring up the USSC? I asked about federal court rulings. Can we leave the USSC out of this?

[EBUCK]

LOL, none of them were/are Conservatives according to the average drug warrior, more likely they are liberdopians or some variant of such.

Oh, wait, did I see RR in there, and his son? That can't be a real WFB Jr quote either.....no say it aint true!!!

LOL

[MrLeRoy]

Then why, out of the blue, did you bring up the USSC?

Because from the fact that the Supreme Court has traditionally taken a relatively lenient view of federal actions presented as wartime needs, it follows that legislative bans being found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime.

[Roscoe]

[Because there was no constitutional question before it to resolve?]

No; "Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims

Yes. If the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, then there was no constitutional question before the USSC for it to resolve.

And as previously pointed out, there is no judicial controversy to settle on that point. The constitutionality of the CSA has been upheld every time the question has been considered.

[Roscoe]

Then why, out of the blue, did you bring up the USSC?

It's a way of avoiding all of the decisions that have made on the issue.

[MrLeRoy]

The constitutionality of the CSA has been upheld every time the question has been considered.

Ditto for the Roe v Wade ruling; color me unimpressed.

[MrLeRoy]

See, there are two issues here: are the wartime laws in question Constitutional; and if so, what does that say about the constitutionality (absent the 18th Amendment) of a peacetime ban on alcohol? bvw was addressing the first issue, whereas I was addressing the second.

[Roscoe]

1. Yah, one little man that spent countless millions to defeat the prop.

2. ...I made no claim to "know" how much of my money the man spent...

Countless millions?

And it was obviously in the countless catagory...

Begging the question.

[Roscoe]

Ditto for the Roe v Wade ruling

No source or cites, naturally.

[EBUCK]

Beg all you want I've made my stance pretty clear.