Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Never written any federal legislation before. How much would you pay?
OK... Kubby (or anyone else for that matter) has hundred of plants in his basement.
And you suggest that this, and this alone, authorizes the federal government to kick in his door and haul him away in chains, under the pretense that it is "regulating interstate commerce"?
Do you even believe this crap yourself?
Our Constitution will do just fine.
And he isn't "in chains." Crash and burn.
Zarf?
What the hell do you need it for?
You ignore everything it says anyway.
Well, I will and it's not..
You see, DON when you begin with "no force, no fraud" you conviently forget about "Property right's"
Your school theory is all smoke, no consistant Libertarian can make your claim.. Because, how will you enforce it?
What arm of Government will you bring down on me and bossie? Eh?
Are you telling me what I can and cannot do on my own land Don? With my own property?
You are full of it and I dare you to justify this expansion of Government in a "pure" Libertarian society..
You are a liar Don.. <P. You are making things up as you go along.. Even the most staunch defender of the Libertarian ideology would agree.
A tax is not a regulation, nor does it imply the power to prohibit.
George Washington and the Founding Fathers didn't understand the Constitution? Wild.
This is not responsive to anything I said. You cannot win an argument by just assuming you've done so, and hoping no one notices how full of hot air you are. George Washington et. al. did not prohibit whiskey consumption, they taxed it. Your silly wordplay, that they therefore "prohibited the sale of untaxed whiskey", and therefore prohibition is historically constitutional, or that, therefore, regulating what people may consume is historical constitutional is as hairbrained a threadbare example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle as I have ever seen anyone try, without actually blushing themselves to death.
It is pretty rare that I am actually disgusted with someone here, but you have made it into that rare company. The way you keep starting the same arguments over and over, from the same starting point, as if nothing went before is either brain-damaged, or dishonest rhetoric, apparently intended to win an intellectual battle by crowding up the bandwidth with propaganda, rather than by reasoning incisively and to the point. I only have so much energy to spend with so little intellectual meat to chew on being offered me in return, and you have worn me down. Is it really your intention never, ever to actually follow through on an argument? What an unrewarding approach to reasoning.
Well, I am sorry TPaine..
Whatever it takes to pad your ego baby..
Base the drug war on the 21st amendment. That places the question under the auspices of the 10th amendment wile giving the Fed a role in interstate and international trafficking.
Rant, ahoy!
And, will some consistant Libertarian tell me what's wrong with this?
(hint.. property right's..)
What the hell do you need it for?
As a barrier to anarchists.
Unless you are talking about the 2nd clause. Then you still have to take into consideration the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment.
You come up with a way to run your WOsD that fits the COnstitution and Bill of Rights, that is NOT repugnant to the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments and I will support you 1000%. Can you do it? It must also fit within the ENUMERATED powers of the Federal Government if you mean to run it from there. In other words, for FedGov to do it, you better get an amendment. To recap, your Constitutional drug war must NOT:
1. Allow ninja-clad thugs to break down doors in the middle of the night;
2. Allow ninja-clad thugs to use blank, fake or NO warrants in the course of their "work";
3. Allow ninja-clad thugs to seize property without a warrant or a trial or even filing charges.
Can the STATES run a drug war this way? I'd say they couldn't, personally, but it would at least get the Feds out of it. And at least you answered, thanks
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.