Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court OKs Hallucinogenic Tea
Associated Press ^ | February 21, 2006 | Gina Holland

Posted on 02/21/2006 7:42:06 AM PST by AntiGuv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 last
To: dubyaismypresident
Next there will be trails from the penembras :^)

The legal justifications for federal protection of partial birth abortion are most definitely penumbra trails!

161 posted on 02/22/2006 8:20:55 AM PST by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider
The legal justifications for federal protection of partial birth abortion are most definitely penumbra trails!

True. But we do not have 5 judges who respect federalism. Scalia was part of the majority in Raich, despite being in the majority in Lopez and even under Lopez you only have the slightest narrowing of commerce clause power.

Plus no Planned Parenthood lawyer is going to agrue the statue should be dismissed on federalism grounds.

162 posted on 02/22/2006 8:27:26 AM PST by NeoCaveman (The shark has been jumped, there is no turning back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian

So your trying to use Scripture to justify HAVING to use a drug in order to know the Lord?


163 posted on 02/22/2006 11:06:19 AM PST by apackof2 (You can stand me up at the gates of hell, I'll stand my ground and I won't back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; jwalsh07

I haven't read anything either. However, where a government law has a reasonable basis not related to religion, such as recreational drug restrictions, I don't think such should cicumscribed by putting a religious label on the activity. That just opens a pandora's box about pedigree, motivation, etc, about the religious practice, ala the separation of church and state issue. Plus, the courts would have to get into the business of parsing just how dangerous the drug it, medically and on behavior.


164 posted on 02/22/2006 11:07:02 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: apackof2

I have done no such thing. One need not justify themselves to any other for the use of an herb. I have quoted Romans 14:2-3 but 4 answers you.

Romans 14:2-4
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

All those standing in judgement are in disobedience to God.
Those willing to use violence to oppress others and imprison
them for the possession, protection or propagation of a gift
from God are adverse to the will of God.


165 posted on 02/22/2006 11:36:28 AM PST by PaxMacian (Gen. 1:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson