Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
"You are rejecting the fact that our Constitution demands [in Article VI] that sworn officials at every level support & defend our Constitution, notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary.. - State laws that would infringe on unenumerated rights as well as enumerated."
By asking the federal government to stay out of issues not under its jurisdiction I am supporting the Constitution.
If a state violates an unenumerated right, the elected representatives or judges should fix the problem. If they do not, the citizens of that state should make them fix it. If the citizens do not, the only way the federal government should be involved is to specify the unenumerated right as protected through a Constitutional amendment. That is exactly what happened with slavery.
The only jurisdiction federal courts have over the protection of unenumerated rights is that they are protected equally with due process.
If a right is not enumerated we do not need a federal court to "find" it. That is exactly what has happened on abortion and, more recently, sodomy. The courts also seem to have found a right not to be offended by someone else's public display of religion.
You, a few sentences later: That I made such a "definition" is YOUR logical fallacy, not mine.
You, sir, cannot get your story, your definitions, nor your logic straight.
I yield the field as a fruitless exercise in banging my head against a wall of indomitable self-righteousness, inability to respond rationally to counter-evidence, and invincible ignorance. Since you have decided you are correct, despite refutation by at least two others on this thread, and nothing of fact, logic or example will sway you, I am done wasting my time.
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state. to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
If a state violates an unenumerated right, the elected representatives or judges should fix the problem. If they do not, the citizens of that state should make them fix it. If the citizens do not, the only way the federal government should be involved is to specify the unenumerated right as protected through a Constitutional amendment.
Amendments are not needed. State officials are clearly bound by their Article VI oath to protect ALL of our Constitutional rights, -- enumerated or not.
The only jurisdiction federal courts have over the protection of unenumerated rights is that they are protected equally with due process.
You are simply making that up. No such clause or wording exists in the Constitution.
From findlaw:
" -- There is an established principle that Congress may authorize the federal courts to compel state officials to comply with federal law, statutory as well as constitutional.
The Supremacy Clause makes federal law paramount over the contrary positions of state officials; the power of federal courts to enforce federal law thus presupposes some authority to order state officials to comply.
No doubt, there is tension between the exercise of Congress' power to impose duties on state officials and the developing doctrine under which the Court holds that Congress may not ''commandeer'' state legislative or administrative processes in the enforcement of federal programs.
However, the existence of the supremacy clause and the federal oath of office, as well as a body of precedent indicates that coexistence of the two lines of principles will be maintained. -- "
I agree, you were wasting your time in arguing for a nonexistent 'power to prohibit'.
Wrong. Real American conservatives don't believe the government should enforce responsibility ... except in those cases where irresponsibility violates the rights of others. Staying up late every night is irresponsible, as is eating a lot of junk food, but they're not government's business.
The same could have been said of Prohibition laws, which you hypocritically refuse to support.
It (illegal recreational drug use) is a dangerous act
Marijuana use is less dangerous than alcohol use; only the latter can lead to fatal overdose.
"That is a religious propaganda source."
HAHAHAHA!
"No, I am not pro-drug, yet.
Your thread would seem to indicate that you are."
Let me re-phrase that. I am not pro-drug abuse, ever. I would be all for allowing drugs to be acquired without prescription, for legal use, if personal responsibility was included.
As long as society has to bear the costs of someone's drug addiction (I don't want to argue this point as I responded to somoene early on in stating that their opinion was where I currently am, and you will need to read that before arguing this point), I am not pro-drug.
Happy to see you have a sense of humor...Not often do people laugh when they get caught referencing bogus propaganda! ...
Happy to see your tinfoil hat still fits your head...Not often do you see a person so oblivious of ridicule... (Before you are actually offended, I call truce. Since I had the last shot, you can either choose grace and not take another shot. Or, you can choose vengence and take a final shot for which I will not respond...unless you see this is all light hearted...not the thread, but rather our dialogue.)
That is the dumbest statement I have heard all day.
They extract money at the point of a gun, and spend it taking care of the dimwits who get AIDS and other assorted maladies.
If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. That translates to "has to" contribute to the care of dimwits.
That is the dumbest statement I have heard all day.
They extract money at the point of a gun, and spend it taking care of the dimwits who get AIDS and other assorted maladies.
If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. That translates to "has to" contribute to the care of dimwits.
It is your interpretation that is "dumb" not my statement. True, we do HAVE to pay taxes. True, some of those monies are spent on irresponsible ne'er-do-wells. But we, as a society, don't HAVE to do that.
We do it because it gives some politicians the opportunity to buy votes. We do it because some with very loud voices, amplified by a friendly press, believe it is "compassionate" of them to partially enslave me (and you) by consigning us part-time jobs (or more accurately by assigning part of the time I work for my employer by taking that effort in the form of taxes) caring for those for whom they feel compassion.
We do it because some want power over others. We do it because some think their "good" ideas are so compelling that all of us should be forced to behave as they'd like -- a manifestation of an overinflated ego.
The "compassionate" crowd is aided and abetted, generally cheerfully, sometimes staunchly, by those who would tell us they are conservatives and lovers of liberty.
I find it outrageous that conservatives would pimp an argument like, because our taxes get used to partially or fully fund emergency room visits for idiots who ride their motorcycles without protective gear we should make and enforce helmet laws rather than repeal those those taxes.
I dislike stupidity as much as the next guy but I know I can't stop it. To be perfectly honest, I'll even admit to lapses myself. But I resent like hell being held responsible for somebody else's dumb behavior and I get held responsible in two ways.
First, I'm held responsible but the compassionate crowd when they forcibly take my money for their socialist schemes.
Second, I'm held responsible by having my liberty curtailed by various bands of "ban everything I disapprove of" wingnut groups through convoluted arguments like, "Hey man, I gotta pay for your screw-ups so I demand that everybody that I gotta pay for get arrested.
It's a lose-lose proposition. Lose my liberty when they take my money AND lose my liberty when they curtail my behavior.
Liberty is a two-headed coin. It implies both freedom and responsibility.
Anybody who pawns his responsibility off onto another is diminisher of and therefore, an enemy of liberty. Anybody who proposes that the proper response to irresponsibility is the curtailment of liberty is an equal enemy.
Bottom line, any true lover of liberty would first-most and always attack the wrongheaded taxes and never, no matter how tempting to their own personal sensibilities, support the curtailers.
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.