Posted on 12/03/2001 11:53:17 PM PST by FF578
Just re-read parts of the thread and realized I spoke incorrectly. I did not realize you were referring to underage sale. Please allow me to amend my previous statement. I believe under age sales should be considered a serious offense. I already pointed out that there are studies that have shown legal drugs more difficult to obtain than illegal. This is due in large part to effective enforcement of age restrictions.I definitely do not believe kids should have access to drugs.
Rubbish. It may be that the consensus opinion supports federal laws against drugs (although you have offered no evidence for even that much), but that would prove only that most Americans either don't care about the Constitution or don't understand it. As a self-proclaimed conservative, you ought to both care about and understand the Constitution, and reject positions based on ignorance and apathy about the supreme law of the land.
Well, 50% +1 must always be right.
/ blatant sarcasm
As are illegal drugs. The War on (Some) Drugs protects only the dealers' profits.
You have misinterpreted my statement. I didn't say (though it is true) that the consensus opinion favors prohibition. I said the consensus is that the laws are Constitutional. I cite as evidence the entire body of American law for the last, oh, let's say 70 years. (although I could probably go all the way back to the early days.
but that would prove only that most Americans either don't care about the Constitution or don't understand it.
Probably more the latter than the former. But I also believe that culturally we have drifted away from fealty to any standards. Standards, in and of themselves, are seen in a negative light it seems. Hence, strict construction is not in favor.
As a self-proclaimed conservative, you ought to both care about and understand the Constitution, and reject positions based on ignorance and apathy about the supreme law of the land.
I care about the Constitution. As for understanding it, that is an ongoing process. The fact that its authors could have strong disagreements, and that great statesmen later could as well, demonstrates to me that it is not as easy to understand as one might think. I happen to think there is much subtely to it, which is a boundary for a lot of people. As for rejecting certain positions, I may reject them in that I do not advocate them, but if they are the prevailing view, I must, I believe, recognize that fact. The question of what to do about it is, then, not so much a philosophical question as it is a strategic question. This, IMO, should be the focus of the debate within the conservative ranks. Instead, we must constantly remind each other of who our friends are and defend our genuine conservative credentials.
We know that is not the case. But sometimes, 50% +1 prevails. That we know IS the case. All I am doing is including that indisputable FACT in my assessment.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha....hillarious. Actually, maybe you're right....better cut down on the sugar as well (another staple from Hawaii).
While the "consensus" may be that the laws are constitutional, I believe if more people knew about and understood the commerce clause, and the history of the federal government's use (or abuse) of it to expand it's power, it would not be. Much of the authority the fed now claims is derived from the interpretation of the commerce clause derived during FDR's New Deal. The only reason this interpretation passed muster in the USSC was that Congress and FDR threatened to increase the court to 15 members and pack the new positions with justices more to their liking if they did not. I, for one think that the federal government's authority for much of what it does under the ubiquitous commerce clause is constitutionally tenuous, at best.
That's a mighty big if (hehe, get it? big if? ahem, anyway...) When I made the statement, I was assessing reality, not a hypothetical situation wherein a majority of Americans suddenly place a high value on standards of process, re-evaluate the last 100+ years of Federal jurisprudence and government en masse, and completely revolutionize government's role in society as they currently understand it.
I, for one think that the federal government's authority for much of what it does under the ubiquitous commerce clause is constitutionally tenuous, at best.
If it is that tenuous, then fixing it ought to be easy, right?
Considering the sheer mass of established bureaucracy built upon this tenuous authority, and the powers that those bureaucracies wield, I suspect that anyone who attempted to fix it and was percieved as having any chance of success would not survive the attempt.
I get into these debates from time to time, and I find it interesting how resistant many people are to assigning responsibility to the People. I refuse to play that game. Let's say that there ARE people who would like to kill someone who might achieve success as we define it: So what? IMO, that's no excuse not to do it.
But back to the point. You said the grounds for the laws in question are tenuous. That apparantly has no practical relevance whatsoever, in your own opinion. So why bring it up? It's meaningless, if you believe that our system is run by brute force, and not by the People. So clarify it for me: Do the People run the government, or is it run by brute force?
Mostly the former. Possibly the latter.
I get into these debates from time to time, and I find it interesting how resistant many people are to assigning responsibility to the People. I refuse to play that game. Let's say that there ARE people who would like to kill someone who might achieve success as we define it: So what? IMO, that's no excuse not to do it.
In our representative government, The People is not the people. It is an abstraction, and the equally astract Will of the People is also an abstraction given to much subjective interpretation by those representatives. The federal government is quite insulated from any authoratative direction from the people.
But back to the point. You said the grounds for the laws in question are tenuous. That apparantly has no practical relevance whatsoever, in your own opinion. So why bring it up? It's meaningless, if you believe that our system is run by brute force, and not by the People. So clarify it for me: Do the People run the government, or is it run by brute force?
I believe it does have some practical releveance to much of the discussion that has taken place on this thread. There seems to be many here who would curse FDR and his authoritarian socialist policies, yet champion the WOD. They do not seem to realize, or if they do, don't care that the WOD is the bastard child of the New Deal.
Our system is "run" largely by bureaucrats who will, both individually and collectively act in their own best interest. It is almost always in their best interest to increase their power and authority whenever possible. It is after all, their livlihood. The system is maintained by varying forms of coercion, brute force being the means of last resort.
If we are going to talk about things in terms of the practical rather than the theoretical, then we need to keep all the principals involve in the same domain. The People is an abstraction, the people are real.
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.