Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Astounding.
Absolutely astounding.
You really have a reading comprehension problem, don't ya? Along with your vocabulary problem you must really have a difficult time getting around. You watch a lot of TV, I bet.
Actually, he meant Von Mises, or Hayek.
If you're going to be a bigshot and correct someone, at least get it right.
And here's the original: click
If they want to regulate interstate sales of drugs or tax them that's fine with me, but if they want to misapply a CLAUSE in contradiction of several AMMENDMENTS, then it's unconstitutional. The same clause that has been used to prohibit drugs has also been used to establish the entire welfare state in violation of the constitution. But I forgot, you prefer big government to the constitution.
George Washington and the Founding Fathers didn't understand the Constitution? Wild.
When a drug dealer sells a vial of crack, where did it come from?
I'll lay pretty good odds that those dark-skinned fellas they were owning, didn't think too much of the founders' understanding of the constitution.
Sure can, and I've done so on countless occasions in past drug war threads. But, since I believe to do so now would be pointless, I must decline. There is about 0.0 chance that the debate would be improved in any way by the answer I would give.
The signal-to-noise ratio in the drug war threads has become way too high for me to throw my two cents in these days, and they've become the FreeRepublic equivalent of a Three Stooges short feature.
The fictional character Lex Luthor once said that some people can glean the secrets of the universe from a chewing gum wrapper. Yesterday, I would have tried.
Astounding.
The sun rises in the east.
I know some of this does some good, but my patience with them does wear thin sometimes.
It wouldn't, because prohibition is NOT a form of regulation. Common usage, or even legal terminology does NOT equate the two words.
By such "reasoning", the power to tax sales wouldn't include the power to prohibit the sale of untaxed items, and the power to regulate the quality of foods sold in interstate commerce wouldn't include the power to prohibit the sale of rotten meat.
Wrong. The taxing/regulating power does not prohibit the sale of items, or the quality of goods . They only regulate for purity/safety, or tax the item . When such regulations, or tax laws are violated, criminal penalties can apply upon conviction.
Violent or fraudulent criminal behavior is 'prohibited', [if you insist on using the term], by our criminal law, using due process, as per the constitution.
--- Fiat prohibitions are not a part of constitutional criminal law, as they violate due process and fundamental rights to life, liberty, or property, before criminal force or fraud occurs. - #781 -
You can't refute the above, yet you keep repeating your 'prohibition' fantasies. One definition of insanity is a repetition of such behavior.
When a man grows a marijuana plant in his basement, and the federal authorities come to kick down his door, and haul him away in chains, are you going to sit there with a straight face and continue to assert "regulation of interstate commerce".
Sorry, but your argument is simply laughable.
Slavery was a matter of state law. As you know, there are self-proclaimed libertarians on FR who advocate gutting the 13th Amendment and allowing the ownership of human beings.
At least you got something right.
Kubby had hundreds of plants.
When a drug dealer sells a vial of crack, where did it come from?
You will too, someday.
Nice dodge... but the US Constitution guaranteed the right to due process, and the right to free speech, and freedom of religion, and freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, and the right to keep and bear arms, and all manner of other protections for men.
Just not the black men the founders happened to own.
That would have been inconvenient.
Your earlier ridiculed another for suggesting that the founders may have often been untrue to the intent of the constitution. Sadly they were.... They were oftentimes hypocrites. You may attempt to rationalize otherwise, but that doesn't change the truth of it.
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.