Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Zon: A major, major, I repeat major problem is that congress writes so many unconstitutional laws and it takes ten times as long to get the court to rule on just one of them. That's one way the government grew into the leviathan that it is. All you've suggested is more of the same. You're the politicians and bureaucrats friend.
A CA Guy: Not at all. Many take things to court and some have been overturned. Maybe the 1% voting influence of Libertarians reported here would grow if they showed they could get results in a case like this.
Some have been overturned. For every unconstitutional law maybe one ever reaches the Supreme Court to be overturned. All that writing of invalid law is a bunch of politicians violating their oath of office. That's the problem. The solution is being implemented.
Kewl beans! Knock yourself out! We'll all pretend that ostracism or the threat thereof is not a form of force or fraud, too.
It's not mine. The ostracism matrix database is just one part of a very big project that has been developed over the last 32 years.
Well, you are certainly free to pretend that a law is not a law. You are free to pretend being required to pay income taxes is not really a law since it is unConstitutional. You are likewise free to pretend that smoking a joint in front of a policeman is perfectly legal, and you may enjoy the opportunity for in-depth discussions on Constitutional law such as action will provide you with a lawful magistrate. While doing so, feel free to pretend you enjoy the unConstitutional three meals a day, too. LOL!
You can go on believing that unconstitutional laws are valid law. I have no need or desire to write long Drivel McNuggets such as you do.
Okay, I'll bite. Whose project is it? The fiends at C.H.A.O.S.?
 |
| "Then would you believe a small kangaroo and two yellow pogo sticks?" |
I don't want to be the only one that hasn't posted here, so this is me.
We'll all pretend that ostracism or the threat thereof is not a form of force or fraud, too.
No need to pretend because there is no initiation of force or fraud. Ostracism is not force. For example, a politician is at the check out counter and the sales clerk checks the ostracism database and says, "Sir, you have a triple AAA value destruction rating. Get out of here now. We don't sell to parasites or value destroyers."
You'll find out in due time. I can tell you this; the IRS tried to shut them down in the 80's but it backfired on them, big time.
CJ and JHoffa_:
Seems like when you read my post you filtered it with whatever ideology you bring to the table.
I was responding to Roscoe's assine assertion that unchecked Libertarianism, followed to its inevitable conclusion (in Roscoe's quark-sized mind) would lead to an Orwellian nightmare. That is a stupid statement on it's face, as Orwell predicted a State-sponsored, State-operated oppression. By Roscoe's own statement there would be basically no government, therefore the "nightmare" he envisioned of people taking property from the weak by force couldn't be Orwellian.
And by the way, what the hell do Fascists like Roscoe call the current state of emminent domain? Hell, if I've got enough money (strong) I can prevail in a lawsuit against the condemnation proceedings either by retaining my property or getting a higher-than-market value for the property. If I don't have money I'll lose my property by force at the "heel" of the government...a true Orwellian nightmare.
CJ - with respect to the gene pool comment, what part of that don't you understand. In Roscoe's mind there would be a bunch of criminals taking property by force from the weak. My comment merely illustrated that it isn't that simple. People stupid enough to try to take my property wouldn't survive the confrontation. How is that wrong? Especially if it is a confrontation devoid of State interference? Is it over the top as a comment? Don't think so. But Roscoe's assinine assertion that the strong would take from the weak had to be addressed. Also, his assertion belies his truly "liberal" viewpoint on the world. He seems to believe that without Government intervention, the strong would oppress the weak and the "weak" would have no recourse. However, he fails to define "strong" and "weak" and assumes that there is no equalization factor.
No, I'm not a radical Libertarian...I'm a true conservative, not of the Fascist brand like Roscoe. I believe in small government; individual rights and individual responsibility. That doesn't make me a Libertarian. But when "conservatives" support secret search warrants, further erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments (don't get me started on the 2nd) and other decidely non-conservative agendas I part company with them. I've seen the potential for abuse on the part of the State first-hand, know it exists and know that the drug war is killing our freedoms in principle. Do I do drugs? F#ck no. Would I do drugs if legal? Again, f#ck no. Do I support erosion of all our liberties in the name of the drug war? What do you think?
For those of you that can't see that limited erosion of the Bill of Rights is anything but limited I say, "F#ck you, you're no conservative."
As to your response that interstate traffic in drugs is massive, that is true but it may well be insufficient to support a commerce clause justification of the CSA, since the purpose of the commerce clause is to prevent states from interefering in interstate commerce. And anyway, my question was limited to whether someone growing for their own use could, under any reasonable interpretation, be subject to federal law.
Or to take drugs out of it, and make the crime one that everyone can agree is terrible: Do you think the federal carjacking law is constitutionally kosher?
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." -William Penn
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
It is one thing to have a contrary view on any particular issue; it is quite another to mock a citizen complaining of encroaching tyranny while yourself scooping up large fees from the existing corruption.
You profiteers of human misery have no scruples, no restraints, no leashes on your vile appetites except the tolerance of your fellow-citizens.
It is my fondest hope that the people's patience with you is coming to an end.
Lawyers will not save Constitutional government in America; they have been the leading agents in socializing America.
You parasites, predators, and scavengers will get your comeuppance one fine day.
And it will be a D*MNED fine day.
Which the Marxist promise to "wither away" the state has inevitably lead to.
It has repeatedly proven sufficient.
Obsessions distort vision.
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.