Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
Not a false premise at all. The push is for everything to be a right. Adding sane and adult to it is just as much of a limitation as what I'm saying and just as illegitimate by the all or nothing thinking being pushed on this thread.
Absolutely! My argument was in the defining it as a right. It is a liberty. And I am all for it. And not just because I take a handful every morning.
I know it sounds nit-picky but words have certain meanings and degrading those meaning lead to confusion.
I also have an argument with the phrases "illegal immigrant" there is no such thing. It is like saying "illegal citizen". An imminent has a legal status by definition. The phrase should be illegal alien.
Or the phrase "Free Speech," once again no such thing. It is Freedom of Speech. Meaning that they can not pass a law making it illegal for you to speak. However, everything has a price. If my employer does not like my speech he is free to exercise his own freedom of speech. i.e. "You're Fired."
That is what discostu, robertpaulsen and I are trying to point out. Words have meaning. And unless we use them properly how can we even know what we are talking about?
Exceptions to the rule are enumerated restrictions on government power. If it isn't in their mandate, the Constitution, then they cannot pass a law regarding it. Period. If a Bill of Rights was added to the State's Constitution, or is already forbidden in the Federal Bill of Rights that are to be regarded as Common to ALL US citizens, then those actions are further restricted to all governing entities in that State. IE; your city council could not ban something that is explicitly spelled out in either the Federal or State Constitutions as being off limits.
Conflicts between enumerated powers, like the commerce clause and the Second Amendment, were to be handled by the USSC on a case by case basis.
At least, that was how the Founders tried to set things up. There has been a lot of "ignoring" going around in regards to governmental actions. If they want to do it, they will find a way to screw the public and still get elected.
I disagree. Since my adverse reaction to a nutritional supplement doesn't screw up other people's rights and liberties, it is not within the legitimate power of any government, including any state, to limit my liberty to take nutritional supplements.
Ah. So this is about you. The laws should be structured for your good.
And the rest of us? The rest of society?
Sorry, I forgot. You're one of those libertarians who could give a FF about the rest of society. You just want to be left alone in your selfish, immoral, individualistic, and hedonistic little world.
Go find an island.
The caveat being of course unless they amend their State Constitution to give them said regulatory control. Not just pass a Law saying they can do it with no Constitutional backing.
I keep saying the same thing over and over because it's right and none of your "arguments" (which have now decended to the level of childish name calling, thus showing your own lack of confidence in them) have addressed any of those points.
I've said multiple times that this is outside the limitations of the federal government. But that doesn't mean vitamins are a right, it just means it's not the fed gov's business. Things that aren't the fed gov's business do not magically become rights.
I've got those concepts quite nicely in my forebrain. But you carefully ignore it when I say that because you want me to have a particular position, that being the only position you have a legitimate argument against. I've said many time, even in posts directly to YOU which you even responded to, that the federal government should NOT write this law because it's outside the athority given to the fed in the Constitution. What I'm arguing is that saying there's a right to take vitamins is foolish and weakens the definition of the word right. Fight the legislation where there's a legitimate argument: limitations of the fed gov in the Constitution. Not where there is no argument: making up rights that don't exist.
And until you actually read what I post and understand that I'm not supporting this legislation this isn't a discussion, it's just you being insulting and rude.
Wrong. Limiting *who* *has* rights is different from limiting *what* *are* their rights.
I had it yesterday, you just finally read what I wrote instead of what you wanted to read.
Sorry but it is. No one is harmed if I correwctly use fireworks, and yet according to the state I live in I'm not even allowed to posses fireworks much less use them.
Please pardon my error.
So this is about you.
Wrong. Since any person's adverse reaction to a nutritional supplement doesn't screw up other people's rights and liberties, there is no legitimate reason to "direct" any person's liberty to take nutritional supplements.
I agree that those limitations are legitimate, they are just as legitmate as understanding that those things that are a liberty are not a right. By pushing for everything that does no harm being a right you are in fact pushing to take sane and child off the limitation list. Unless a person's insanity poses a threat to others there's no rights problem there. Being young poses no threat to others so there's no rights problem there. If everything that doesn't hurt other people is a right then insane youth have just as many rights as everybody else. You want all or nothing, then have it. That is the system you are demanding, backing down now is raw hypocrise.
Sorry but it is. No one is harmed if I correwctly use fireworks, and yet according to the state I live in I'm not even allowed to posses fireworks much less use them.
Fireworks can be argued to be a "clear and present danger" to other people's rights and liberties; nutritional supplements cannot. And just because a government does something does not prove that they have the legitimate power to do it.
Nobody's arguing that young people have no right to be young, so your point is irrelevant and your conclusion remains false.
If they didn't need a friggin' AMENDMENT in 1913, then why did they need a friggin' AMENDMENT in 1919, dip$hit?
Actually, I'm talking about natural rights rather than legal rights.
You know those other "Rights" mentioned in the US Constitution? Those "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" type 9th Amendment Rights? Therein lies your Right to ingest vitamins. Now put the wording from the rest of the stuff we already agreed upon and you will see why I keep denigrating your position. You keep missing the godd*mn point.
You don't think that's what you're arguing for but you are. The same group of leftists that support everything being a right are the ones pushing for children's rights and the same group that thought Germany shouldn't have arrested the cannibal perve. Those are your compatriots in the battle to change the definition of right.
Ah but given that the nutritional suppliment industry has no oversight and you don't know what's in them, they even go so far as to tell the consumer they're not garaunteeing any of the results they promise, there CAN be harm to others in the production or sale of nutritional suppliments. And if it gets you all woozy and you crash your car into a school bus there's potential for harm to others too.
And in the case of fireworks any level of misuse that results in harm to others is already a crime, so if that's a legitimate reason for the state to ban something say goodbye to your guns and car.
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.