Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine
A given? WTFBBQ?!? How?!?!? You said the constitution allows for NO compromise. We are allowed ALL property, period. How can you make exceptions?!?! YOU JACK BOOTED THUG!!!
A given? WTFBBQ?!? How?!?!? You said the constitution allows for NO compromise. We are allowed ALL property, period. How can you make exceptions?!?! YOU JACK BOOTED THUG!!!
Sophomoric argument again. You're playing the same childish games you played three years ago, tex. - Grow up.
FR's "organizers" show us what they are made of with every juvenile comment posted.
-- Proof enough of Bastiat's point.
No you simply want to have your cake and eat it to. You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense".
So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.
-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.
So your entire argument here is: Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.
Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.
-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.
So your entire argument here is:
Their you go again, inventing my "entire argument".. You're an amusingly juvenile troll.
Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.
How many ways can you mischaracterize my position, tex-baby? -- Troll on.
It's pretty simple bro. Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do. There's no "only what tpaine thinks is dangerous".
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one?
-- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --"
Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins
Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic. Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can. So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do.
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one? -- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.
Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.
Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --" Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.
Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
Can you agree on those basics?
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"?
Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.
Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do.
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one? -- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.
Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.
Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --" Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.
Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
Can you agree on those basics?
Tex can't even agree:
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"? Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Weird reply; -- 'Deciding' is answered just above. --- Read much?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.
Prohibiting you from buying a gun is unreasonable, unless it obvious you are of unsound mind & high on crack at the time. -- Once sober we can discuss the issue as reasonable adults. Keep trolling, and no doubt you will make a complete fool of yourself.
I didn't say gun, I said crack. And you still haven't provided a solid foundation for where we can establish what exactly is reasonable. Who get's to say?
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex?
In our system: -- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; -- and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
You can't even agree on those basics?
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"? Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Weird reply; -- 'Deciding' is answered just above. --- Read much?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.
Prohibiting you from buying a gun is unreasonable, unless it obvious you are of unsound mind & high on crack at the time. -- Once sober we can discuss the issue as reasonable adults. Keep trolling, and no doubt you will make a complete fool of yourself.
I didn't say gun, I said crack.
Read the posted article; -- It's an excellent essay on why prohibitions on guns & cocaine are unreasonable.
And you still haven't provided a solid foundation for where we can establish what exactly is reasonable.
Who get's to say?
In our system this is "who gets to say", tex:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; -- and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
We are all responsible for being "reasonable" about each others Constitutional liberties.
Now and then of course, we find people like you who believe in prohibitions on liberty. -- Which is a weird choice, one you can't even understand.
Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He refuses to answer a direct question because he has no answer.
"Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen".
RP likes nothing better than seeing individual liberties restricted.
He don't want no steenkin' free country.
Reasonable ones do not? And you know the difference?
"You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty"
Sane is irrelevant. It is a fact that government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process.
"and that anyone who protests this power is crazy"
Crazy is irrelevant. Maybe not in your case, no, but in general.
Anyone who doesn't realize that government has the power to deprive someone of liberty with due process is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.
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.