Addicted to the Drug War

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

[Roscoe]

I was going to suggest a $50 contribution to the McCaulley campaign.

Let's make it $3,000.

[Zon]

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.

Use some common sense man. Perhaps somebody sees you frequently walking down the street picking your nose. They think it's wrong so they get the government to initiate force against you to stop. To the person who nearly pukes whenever they see somebody picking their nose it seems like a good idea to them to get the government to initiate force against you for picking your nose in public. That's why there must be a victim that can prove initiation of force was used against them. The person that pukes could chose to look the other way just as another person chose not to look at the porn magazine lying on the park bench.

[eno_]

This is why people keep asking you if you think the commerce clause was meant to stretch as far as New Deal "innovations" have stretched it. That's a real legitimate argument, and what you cite is a very small fig leaf to cover a very big schlong porking our rights. Morevoer this commentary predates the travesty of the New Deal legislation and subsequent commerce clause hanky panky.

[Zon]

Very good. Thanks.

[eno_]

I was going to suggest a $50 contribution to the McCaulley campaign.

Let's make it $3,000.

That's not what I call being a gracious winner. Especially since you know the answer. Has Ollie raised enough money to treat contributors this way?

[Cultural Jihad]

Perhaps somebody sees you frequently walking down the street picking your nose. They think it's wrong so they get the government to initiate force against you to stop.

Comparing public-nose-picking to the most vicious and degrading of pornography does not dig you out of the public relations pit most libertarian ideologues find themselves in, bud. You try so well to carry their water for them, and yet you continue to eschew their label. Good try.

[Demidog]

You can't figure that out for yourself?

[tpaine]

State constitutions were, in the beginning, superior to the Federal

--- Nope. -- Not till 1833 [barron v baltimore] did the USSC rule that the BOR's only restricted the fed gov. This ruling became one of the many causes of the civil war.

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.

Yep, and pray that they do 'incorporate' the 2nd as applying to the states. -- California is about to lose the RTKBA.

You claimed once, that you didn't care about Ca. gun rights. -- Still feel that way?

[Texasforever]

You claimed once, that you didn't care about Ca. gun rights. -- Still feel that way?

Yes

[Roscoe]

That's not what I call being a gracious winner.

I think personal questions are inappropriate.

[Demidog]

There must necessarily be admitted powers by implication

Balogney. You have to ignore the tenth amendment which explicitly says that there were not. In fact, Madison himself said this and it was his argument AGAINST the bill of rights. If Storey wants to ignore what the constitution plainly says then that's his problem.

[eno_]

Well you are the one who offered to do the striptease for $1k to FR. As they say "Now that we know what you are, let's discuss the price."

[Zon]

Comparing public-nose-picking to the most vicious and degrading of pornography does not dig you out of the public relations pit most libertarian ideologues find themselves in, bud. You try so well to carry their water for them, and yet you continue to eschew their label. Good try.

I carry my own water. As you carry your own. I have seen dozens of post from you that are along the statist line and I have never accused you of carrying water for the statist. So what pornography do you want to outlaw, soft stuff like Playboy magazine or the S&M stuff or both? Either way you want it the person can chose to not engage in looking at pornography just as  a person can chose not to look at you picking your nose.

[budwiesest]

Nice pics. Frankly (no pun intended) I don't see the attraction, at least she's not my date!

[Roscoe]

This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectively in them; and if not so invested, it is retained BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their residuary sovereignty. When this amendment was before congress, a proposition was moved, to insert the word "expressly" before "delegated," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the constitution," &c. On that occasion it was remarked, that it is impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers. 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.

[Zon]

Well you are the one who offered to do the striptease for $1k to FR. As they say "Now that we know what you are, let's discuss the price."

Where can I find the post that Roscoe said that? Do you have the subject  line or key word from the subject or aprox. date it was posted?

[Roscoe]

I figure the "bet" was smoke.

[Demidog]

No source? And frankly this makes sense but it in no way refutes my position. Of course there are implied powers but only those powers which are subjugate to the enumerated powers. Thus the congress has the power to enact laws which specify the regulation of interstate commerce but those laws cannot in any way expand those powers outside of what is already enumerated.

[Roscoe]

A second time:

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

[tpaine]

You claimed once, that you didn't care about Ca. gun rights. -- Still feel that way?

Yes - Tex

Thank you for admitting that you do not honor the constitution, or our inalienable right to self defense.

Why do you hang around free republic? For the baiting?