Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[Demidog]

Drug dealers who shoot police might avoid the death penalty.

Some drug dealers who have shot police issuing illegal warrants have gotten off scot free and rightfully so.

[Demidog]

Drug dealers who shoot police might avoid the death penalty.

Some drug dealers who have shot police issuing illegal warrants have gotten off scot free and rightfully so.

[Roscoe]

http://www.ca.lp.org/lpcm/9702-Flynt.html

[Demidog]

Drug dealers who shoot police might avoid the death penalty.

Some drug dealers who have shot police issuing illegal warrants have gotten off scot free and rightfully so.

[AKbear]

Dang, I am sure I only hit the button once.

[dcwusmc]

I should care what he calls himself? Anybody who supported billy jeff is a dem.

[Cultural Jihad]

Enjoy: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/non/nl/okersnac.htm

[Roscoe]

Anybody who supported billy jeff is a dem.

And the LP's presidential campaigns benefited who?

[Texasforever]

Because there are powers not given to the feds which are given to the states. Those powers just don't happen to cover the outlawing of any rights enumerated in the bill of rights. What does the 10th amendment mean to you?

The 10th amendment was supposed to recognize the sovereignty of the individual states and their ability through their elected representatives to govern themselves as the saw fit. It was the "laboratories of democracy" theory. State constitutions were, in the beginning, superior to the Federal but that all changed after the Civil War and especially after the 14th amendment was ratified. What we have now is a Federal Government that can impose its will on each state regardless of the issue, all that is required is for the Supreme Court to rule that a state action is unconstitutional. You, being an anti-federalist, should know this.

[Zon]

there will always be the Larry Flynt's of the world who will use your rules to engage in bad behavior and will attempt to force it on the rest of us.

It's not initiation of force when you have a choice not to look at his pornography. If you want to form a protest group to ostracism him you can do that so long as you don't initiate force on any person. I'm not into porn. Some people are just like some people would ostracize Flynt. But if you get the government to initiate force against Flynt there's no stopping somebody else from getting the government to initiate force on you because they don't like something you do. That would be using the government to force their version of morality on you.

[tpaine]

First the goat, now you're jealous about a pussycat?

Have you no shame about discussing your beastiality proclivities? ----- What will your friends think?

[eno_]

Hmmm, you take a propritary interest in the death penalty for shooting a cop - even if it was a rightious shot, and you slam the LP for taking votes from Republicans. OK, I'll bet you ARE an ex-cop running for a state assembly seat in Cali. What do I win if I am right? The big hint is the original poster said "you" and you assumed he was talking about cops.

[Cultural Jihad]

But if you get the government to initiate force against Flynt there's no stopping somebody else from getting the government to initiate force on you because they don't like something you do.

As if the Founding Fathers fought for the right of people to manufacture and consume the most degrading of porn, which is nonsense. "Don't ban pornography because then someone else might decide to ban puppies, or daisies, or saying the Rosary!" Such is the line of moral-cowards. Pornography, we were told by the liberals, would remain in the homes of consenting adults. In reality, it has flooded our culture, and slaps you in the face wherever you turn.

[Demidog]

The 10th amendment makes it clear that the constitution was specific in the powers it gave the federal government. That only those things explicitly given were included in the federal powers. Otherwise, you're correct, there would be no need to have seperate constitutions. However, it is also true that a bill of rights would not be required eitehr if the states could simply ignore those rights at their whim.

They were not given the rights that were reserved to the people as the 10th says explicitly.

You cannot be an advocate of states rights and ignore the fact that the tenth tells us all that states do not have the power to deny rights. They only have the powers that are not reserved for the federal government.

Thus for instance, they may regulate commerce which occurs inside of their state but not what occurs between their state and another. They may regulate any activity which is not a right of the people.

[Roscoe]

I'll bet you ARE an ex-cop

Loser donates $1,000 FR? Up for a real bet?

[budwiesest]

Dang, that beast/love thing going again.

If Jack's in love, he's no judge of Jill's beauty........Ben Franklin

Jill is the War on Drugs.
Jill is overbearing.
Jill is probably overweight.
Jill spends too much money.
Jill is flatulent.
Jill is dangerous.
Jill drives a nice car.
Jill wears ninja suits.
Jill likes her boots.
Jill listens to your phone conversations.
Jill is forgiving of people in high places.
Jill has made many friends.
Jill likes Krispy Kreme.

[eno_]

I was going to suggest a $50 contribution to the McCaulley campaign. I don't make bets unless they are sucker-bets, and I'm not confident enough to say your not still a cop. Like I said in an earlier post, I thought you must either be McCaulley or be a cop who knows him.

[Texasforever]

Thus for instance, they may regulate commerce which occurs inside of their state but not what occurs between their state and another. They may regulate any activity which is not a right of the people

. And some examples of those activities?

[Cultural Jihad]

Who doesn't?

[Roscoe]

That only those things explicitly given were included in the federal powers.

Wrong.

There must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to the most minute details. It is a general principle, that all corporate bodies possess all powers incident to a corporate capacity, without being absolutely expressed. The motion was accordingly negatived. Indeed, one of the great defects of the confederation was, (as we have already seen,) that it contained a clause, prohibiting the exercise of any power, jurisdiction, or right, not expressly delegated. The consequence was, that congress were crippled at every step of their progress; and were often compelled by the very necessities of the times to usurp powers, which they did not constitutionally possess; and thus, in effect, to break down all the great barriers against tyranny and oppression.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1900--1901

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs9.html