Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary Does Really Well with His Kids One-on-One
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If every FReeper and Lurker gave just $7 a month
No More FReepathons!
Posted on 10/30/2011 11:58:33 AM PDT by bamahead
A perfect description of the WoSDs.
Whoa! How many children die of overdoses of illegal drugs - any numbers?
I'll wager that the number is far lower than the number killed by overdoses of legal drugs.
I'll guess I can put you in with the liberals who gutted the Constitution "for the children"
A lot of somebodies, actually.
3,920,000 results in .17 seconds.
Copy and paste, not willing to take the time to do the HTML. Not worth it.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=children%20drowning%20in%20bucket&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4d5ffce80577a26&biw=1280&bih=599&pf=p&pdl=3000
The article posits there’s a drug war problem, but the article shows there is a police problem.
>>>right. drug war is evil, ergo legal sanction of drug use is good.
>>
>>So where does the Constitution delegate authority to fedgov to impose national prohibition, in your personal opinion?
>
>Non sequitir.
No, it actually isn’t.
Because if the federal government does not have the authority to regulate drugs, then those laws are illegitimate.
If those laws are illegitimate, then enforcement thereof is itself illegal: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000242——000-.html
>Is the drug “war” about drugs, or about war? And what is the real target of all this?
>
>Is it public safety? Or the public?
I would posit that it is the ‘public safety’ because then it can be held as a ransom; just like teachers & firemen are the first government jobs threatened when there is a payroll/tax problem.
We did not have illegal drugs until the progressives got some outlawed in the early 20th century. The WOD is another progressive “gift” to the country.
>I would rather see narcotics given out free at clinics then to see the Constitution continue to get shredded and people lose all faith in their judicial system.
I’ve already lost faith in the judicial; what else can be said of the branch that held that imagination can allow the seizure of a home via eminent domain? (5005’s Kelo decision had the government’s “projections” on tax revenue qualify for the 5th amendment requirement that such be “for public use”.)
Furthermore; I did a little research into what authority my state-courthouse had for placing “no weapons, violators will be prosecuted” signs up when I got called for jury-duty. Interestingly, I found that there is no such law. And even were there one, it would be in violation of the State’s Constitution which says, in Art II, Sec 6:
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
And yes, even city and county courthouses prohibit weapons; which violate the second sentence.
After declaring a state of invasion, I would order the arrest for treason-trials of the mayor, city-council, and police-chiefs of any sanctuary cities (if there were any) in my jurisdiction along with the military movement thereon.
Posse Cometaus may prohibit the use of the military to enforce domestic law; but I can still use it to wage war!
The 18th Amendment enacted Prohibition in 1920. So there was popular sentiment in the country to end the production and distribution of alcohol. Just 13 years later in 1933 Prohibition was repealed with the 21st Amendment. What is striking is that the people of the United States had the good sense to understand that Prohibition was a horrific mistake. Then they were able to do a quick 180 and rectify their foolish and dare a say stupid mistake.
But by 1935, after the FDR government interventions, Congress passed the drug laws without a peep about its lack of authority to do so. No one challenged the consitutionality of the drug laws.
You’re very right; but the very existence of the 18th Amendment is all the proof we should need for a judiciary that worships precedent to show that the drug laws are invalid... unless, ‘precedent’ is merely the judiciary’s way of saying “I can ignore what I don’t like and make you follow what I do!”
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.