Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-748 next last
To: robertpaulsen
You said, "The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal." And I took you to say that a right is not a right unless it's enumerated.

In this post, you say having to enumerate is silly. I agree. I really wasn't addressing the article at all, just your statement.

So, then, now you're saying that because the firearm weapon is considered so important it has an amendment to itself, other rights not specifically mentioned can be abrogated by the state?
The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

101 posted on 01/12/2003 11:13:45 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Roscoe
If one wants to make a case for legalizing drugs based on the 9th or 14th amendment, be my guest. But that's not what the author of the article was doing, was it? He was attempting to compare drug freedom with gun freedom, a right specifically protected by the 2nd amendment.

And a good job he did, which you have been unable refute. Specific enumeration of our rights is not needed. -- Read the 9th or the 14th for proof.

Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately?

Answered previously, - and again, you were unable to refute.

Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.
89 -robertpaulsen-

And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms. Not that they care. 92 -roscoe-

Typically inane comment roscoe. --- Why does comparing violated rights 'discredit' either one of them?

102 posted on 01/12/2003 11:24:33 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."

The Making of Prohibition

103 posted on 01/12/2003 11:29:19 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It is a given that states can reasonably 'regulate' the use & sale of most anything. - The key being legally reasonable, --- as per the Justice Harlan quote I posted earlier.

Thus roscoe, your quote on prohibition is inane, as usual.
104 posted on 01/12/2003 11:39:16 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th.
-?- Can you explain the meaning of this line of gibberish?"

"bring over" = incorporate

The Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Although the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment may limit action by state and local governments, they have rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entire Bill of Rights.

Today, only three provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, 5th and 7th Amendments, remain unincorporated.

"listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything"

The right of California to ban guns says nothing about my position on the issue.

105 posted on 01/12/2003 11:39:29 AM PST by robertpaulsen (Proud member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; tpaine
"Specific enumeration of our rights is not needed. -- Read the 9th or the 14th for proof."

I can read the ninth. But how do the courts read the ninth?

695 F.2d 261 (google it)

The Seventh Circuit found no Supreme Court precedent to support the theory that the Ninth Amendment protects any specific right. In fact, the Ninth Amendment has not been used to define the rights of individuals or to invalidate state or federal laws.

"Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed, any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no legal significance. Appellants may believe the ninth amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms; the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory."

Please stop it with the 9th Amendment references. And William, I guess we'll need your list after all.

106 posted on 01/12/2003 11:55:19 AM PST by robertpaulsen (Proud member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th.

-?- Can you explain the meaning of this line of gibberish?"

"bring over" = incorporate The Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

So the south claimed, refuted by the supermacy clause of Art VI. The 14th was passed, in part, to resolve that issue.

Although the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment may limit action by state and local governments, they have rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entire Bill of Rights. Today, only three provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, 5th and 7th Amendments, remain unincorporated.

'Incorporation', in my opinion, is just a shysters dodge, used to gain more power to the 'justice' system.

--------------------------

"listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything"

The right of California to ban guns says nothing about my position on the issue.

It says it all. You do not support our inalienable RKBA's, if you believe states have the 'right' to ban them. The NRA should revoke your membership, imo.

107 posted on 01/12/2003 12:01:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."

Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication. We tried eradication, remember?

108 posted on 01/12/2003 12:08:18 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
A shyster's dodge? That's your argument? Why oh why do I waste my time?

Again, if I state a fact it doesn't mean that I support that fact. It's just a fact.

109 posted on 01/12/2003 12:09:51 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Limitations. Not eradication.

False. Local prohibitions predate our Constitution.

110 posted on 01/12/2003 12:12:27 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Frankly, I don't know but I'm confident a major drug company acting under a US controlled substance license could produce whatever was required.
111 posted on 01/12/2003 12:18:36 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Agreed. My suggestion - that Boards of Health distribute to certified addicts - takes the profit out of drugs and, eventually, ends the War on Drugs.
112 posted on 01/12/2003 12:21:43 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Next you'll be quoting the 9th Circuit?

In any case that is an insane 'finding'. -- The ninth amendment clearly says that "others retained by the people" shall not be denied.
Both the 7th Circuit and you are denying your own rights. -- Why? - Its irrational.

113 posted on 01/12/2003 12:35:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
'Incorporation', in my opinion, is just a shysters dodge, used to gain more power to the 'justice' system.

A shyster's dodge? That's your argument?, Why oh why do I waste my time?

Indeed, why do you waste your time calling my clearly labled opinion an argument? Are you daft, or duplicit?

Again, if I state a fact it doesn't mean that I support that fact. It's just a fact.

And I didn't argue about your fact, I gave my opinion of those facts.
Get a logical grip.

114 posted on 01/12/2003 12:47:04 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Local prohibitions predate our Constitution. -roscoe-

So what? -- Local prohibitions on property are unconstitutional.
-- Reasonable regulations on the use/sale of property are legal. Outright bans are not.
115 posted on 01/12/2003 12:54:10 PM PST by tpaine (roscoe -- king of FR inanities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Local prohibitions on property are unconstitutional.

False, sourceless, meritless, mindless.

116 posted on 01/12/2003 12:57:31 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Repetitive inanities R roscoe.

Get lost.
117 posted on 01/12/2003 1:03:28 PM PST by tpaine (roscoe -- king of FR inanities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
"Public intoxication is not tolerated in any society, that would not change if drugs were decriminalized."

My point exactly.
94 -pup-

No, my boyo, you never made any such point, even by inference.
-- Simply put, you are claiming you did to save face. - And its far too late for that.
118 posted on 01/12/2003 1:17:46 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You cite a case from the 7th Circuit in 1982. Circuit courts are overturned all the time. Did you shepardize it? The court says the SC never embraces the theory the 9th amendement includes the right to arms. Of course not, the right has its own amendment, as you pointed out.

The court is not saying that the 9th amendments does not protect unenumerated rights held by the people, it's saying that it checked the SC rulings and couldn't find one that enumerated the rights to be protected under the 9th. It probably found several where the SC said the 9th protects rights not otherwise named in the Constitution.

To read it any other way is nonsense. If the 9th amendment doesn't protect unenumerated rights fo the people, why is it there and why is the wording as it is?

Certerori was denied to the SC because the point that the 9th protects what the 2nd protects was argued. Cert was not denied because the SC refused to rule on the fact the 9th protects unenerated rights.

The wording of the 9th is clear, unambiguous and to the point. No cigar. Try again.

119 posted on 01/12/2003 1:17:48 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"The court is not saying that the 9th amendments does not protect unenumerated rights held by the people, it's saying that it checked the SC rulings and couldn't find one that enumerated the rights to be protected under the 9th. It probably found several where the SC said the 9th protects rights not otherwise named in the Constitution."

A large part of the constitutional problems we face can be attributed to the way lawyers/judges misuse the english language, imo.
-- And I have no doubt that much of this misuse is deliberate.
120 posted on 01/12/2003 1:27:58 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Why do you insist on shooting the messenger? Pretend you're reading a newspaper or something.

I am not making these things up. I don't agree with them. They just are.

And I cite them only to refute your statements, not that they reflect my feelings. You can't just blatently throw around 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment as an argument. Do you expect people just to nod their head and say, "Yeah, 9th and 14th Amendment. Uh-huh. Right, tpaine says so"?

Keep in mind that the 9th Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment, thereby blurring the distinction and separation between the States and the Federal government, which was what the 9th Amendment was supposed to do!.

In 200 years, the 9th Amendment was used only twice in a court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). And even then, the rights of the individual could only be found in "emanations and penumbras" of the Amendment.

Robert Bork said of the 9th: "...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution." But you think that it guarantees the right to smoke dope. Ok.

121 posted on 01/12/2003 1:33:25 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"The wording of the 9th is clear, unambiguous and to the point. No cigar. Try again."
William Terrell

"...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution."
former U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork (on the 9th Amendment)

Oh, who to believe?

See my post #121. I think the 14th Amendment really screwed up the 9th. (to tpaine: Not that I agree!)

122 posted on 01/12/2003 1:45:32 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No, my boyo, you never made any such point, even by inference. -- Simply put, you are claiming you did to save face. - And its far too late for that.

I have NO idea where or WHAT you've been reading. YOU have been FOR legalization..I have ALWAYS been AGAINST it. And now, I tire of your useless & misleading viewpoint. Don't forget to take your lithium. Buh bye.

123 posted on 01/12/2003 2:03:59 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Another Circuit Court decision knocking down the "drugs equal guns" assertion:

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.

Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.

https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html


124 posted on 01/12/2003 2:07:44 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
False. Local prohibitions predate our Constitution.

Irrelevant. There are dry counties in the states, but controlled by the state constitutions. The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution.

125 posted on 01/12/2003 2:16:57 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution." former U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork (on the 9th Amendment)

Of course. You don't have to interpret a waterblot. It's obviously a waterblot; it can't be anything else. Therefore the 9th can't mean anything else than what it says.

BTW, do you have the whole quote and the context? If you do post it. Such a fragment could have been saying anything.

That's why there had to be an amendment for liquor prohibition and why drug prohibition, like firearm prohibition, has to be accomplished through Article 1, secion 8 clause 3.

You can believe whomever you want. Nothing I can say will make it clear that you, along with most of us, have been had.

126 posted on 01/12/2003 2:26:58 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In any case that is an insane 'finding'. -- The ninth amendment clearly says that "others retained by the people" shall not be denied. Both the 7th Circuit and you are denying your own rights. -- Why? - Its irrational. 113 -tpaine-

Why do you insist on shooting the messenger? Pretend you're reading a newspaper or something.

Why do you insist that I'm shooting a messenger? I'm countering your confused, mistaken opinions, just as I write, countering an editorial in a newspaper.

I am not making these things up. I don't agree with them. They just are.

You agree with the 'concept' that states can ban guns, but you don't agree with them doing so. - Sure. -- You need help with your ethical dichotomies, in my book.

And I cite them only to refute your statements, not that they reflect my feelings. You can't just blatently throw around 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment as an argument.

I'm not 'throwing them around', I'm arguing the point that they mean what they say. - Counter my actual opinions or arguments, not what you "blatently" mischaracterize them to be.

Do you expect people just to nod their head and say, "Yeah, 9th and 14th Amendment. Uh-huh. Right, tpaine says so"?

No, I expect reasoned debate, which seldom appears.

Keep in mind that the 9th Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment, thereby blurring the distinction and separation between the States and the Federal government, which was what the 9th Amendment was supposed to do!

I don't see that the Ninth was altered in any way by the 14th. The 14th merely clarified that the BOR's can not be violated by state laws, as per the original intent of the Supermacy clause. This concept is backed up by the 14ths ratification hearings, available at the congressional library. Read them.

In 200 years, the 9th Amendment was used only twice in a court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut (birth control) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). And even then, the rights of the individual could only be found in "emanations and penumbras" of the Amendment. Robert Bork said of the 9th: "...no more interpretable than a waterblot on the Constitution." But you think that it guarantees the right to smoke dope. Ok.

There [in bold] is probably the real issue. It seems that many could care less about our constitution if this single issue was enforced as 'law'. Sorry, but prohibiting abortion doesn't work any better than banning alcohol, drugs or guns. -- And, like any fiat prohibition, it is unconstitutional.

-- You see abortion as murder? prosecute it as such. Murder laws are on the books in every state.

127 posted on 01/12/2003 2:40:41 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Buh bye pup. -- Get that tail up an wagging.
Tucked tween your legs like that is bad form.
128 posted on 01/12/2003 2:44:36 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Inane. No mention of the gun issue. Try to keep focused roscoe.
129 posted on 01/12/2003 2:47:26 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution.

The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails, so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.

The Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union "oversaw the election of the two-thirds majorities necessary in both houses of Congress to initiate what became the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

See http://prohibition.history.ohio-state.edu/asl/

The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago

"The day is unlikely to come when the eighteenth amendment will be repealed."

--President Warren Harding, 2nd Annual Message, December 8, 1922


130 posted on 01/12/2003 4:00:34 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No mention of the gun issue.

What a stupidly false claim.

The Commerce Clause empowers Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), which made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." This was so because the act "neither regulate[d] a commercial activity nor contain[ed] a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1626. Proyect argues that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Lopez, and its renewed willingness to place limits on congressional power, render his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) invalid. We disagree.

131 posted on 01/12/2003 4:02:37 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Another Circuit Court decision knocking down the "drugs equal guns" assertion:
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.
Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.
https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html
124 posted on 01/12/2003 2:07 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


To: Roscoe
Inane. No mention of the gun issue. Try to keep focused roscoe.
129 posted on 01/12/2003 2:47 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 |

Find the 'gun issue' mentioned above in the quote.
Just who made the 'false stupid' claim is quite evident.
132 posted on 01/12/2003 4:19:36 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"...Supreme Court's decision in Lopez..."

Even if you ignore the link, you would have to be astounding ignorant to be unaware of Lopez.

133 posted on 01/12/2003 4:26:06 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Roscoe: "False. Local prohibitions predate our Constitution."

Irrelevant. There are dry counties in the states, but controlled by the state constitutions. The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution. 125 -WT-

The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails,

Not so. Dry counties are 'regulating' the public sale & drinking of booze. A fiat prohibition on private use would be a constitutional violation.

so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.

So you decree, just as all prohibitionists love fiat decrees.
Move to Singapore roscoe, if you love 'benevolent' dictatorships.

134 posted on 01/12/2003 4:38:32 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Whatever

135 posted on 01/12/2003 4:40:08 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."

The Making of Prohibition

136 posted on 01/12/2003 4:46:55 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails, so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.

I didn't switch anything; I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary to explain it. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.

"Local" prohibitions are done under the police power of the state. The police power can be activated by anything that presents a danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The polpow is extensive and unlimited, but the danger must be specified and demonstratable, must be constitutional, and the remedy being possible and effective. Read the Slaughterhouse cases for more.

Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow. In the case of alcohol, some states left it up to counties. I would be more than happy to see regulation of vegetation and it products where it belongs, in the STATES.

The police power is not constitutional. You probably won't find the phrase "police power" in the text of the constitutions, I haven't seen it in the several I've read through. I didn't read them word for word.

The police power is common law. Without it the state couldn't keep order at all, so couldn't exist. The existence of a state implies police powers.

The federal government has none of this, or at least is not supposed to. Every power the fed has is in the constitution because the fed originated as a construct for the states where people actually lived. People do not live in the United States unles they're living in a federal district. They live in a state.

States can't be made to enforce a federal law. The sheriff of a county can summarily eject federal officers (offfice of sheriff is second in executive power for a state). The states can't be made to do a great many things. That's why the feds came up with a redistribution of money back to the states, with strings attached.

The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.

The fed's ghost of a police power has had only the authority given to it by the media. And the people they influence. That's why 1-8-3 is successful now, but wouldn't have been successful in 1919. Notice it is the only one that could be stretched with any rational excuse, but the act of choosing a 1-8 power to use shows by that very fact it was to be used for a purpose not to just to regulate commerce.

In that sense, any clause could be hijacked to authorize anything Congress wants to do, thereby producing an "alternative" to an amendment.

So, no, only an amendment could be used. Until the system had time to turn out dumb citizens.

The "Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union" would have only considered it because they were morons, as was duly proved when by trying to prohibit an item with a large natural market.

137 posted on 01/12/2003 5:48:51 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
And I have no doubt that much of this misuse is deliberate.

That, or there are judges that have little idea of what the law says or means, maybe like those appointed or elected that were successful divorce lawyers.

138 posted on 01/12/2003 5:53:40 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; wardaddy; Travis McGee; Fred Mertz; SLB; harpseal; big ern; piasa; Jeff Head
Wonder if my SUV supports terrorism yet ?
139 posted on 01/12/2003 5:58:00 PM PST by Squantos (Stay Safe Ya'll !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I posted it on 3 threads. The photo is a humorous depiction Elvis and a pile of cocaine. All of the threads I posted to had to do with Elvis, drugs, or both.

I can't make things any plainer than that. You aren't winning this little argument Mr. Paine, don't you have better things to do?

140 posted on 01/12/2003 6:06:16 PM PST by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
Sure - OK, - I'm not winning. But in the meantime you've proved yourself to be quite the weirdo. - Thanks.
141 posted on 01/12/2003 6:20:42 PM PST by tpaine (Being dishonest doesn't make you smart; it puts limits on how smart you can possibly be seen to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
[Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists.]

1.Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication.

2. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.

Shell game.

Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow.

No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions.

The Constitutional justifications are carefully laid out in the CSA. None of the drug legalization crowd on FR have ever managed to refute them.

This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.

§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:


142 posted on 01/12/2003 6:41:25 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; All
Here's a related thread that illustrates the downside of a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that many defend-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821460/posts
143 posted on 01/12/2003 6:44:35 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Local" prohibitions are done under the police power of the state. The police power can be activated by anything that presents a danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The polpow is extensive and unlimited, but the danger must be specified and demonstratable, must be constitutional, and the remedy being possible and effective. Read the Slaughterhouse cases for more. -WT-

No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions. -roscoe-

Roscoe, how can you keep up your pretense to any credibility on this forum? -- WT cites Slaughterhouse, and then goes on to present more arguments as to common law, etc, -- and you blithely ignore them, make a partial quote, and then lie about that.

Incredible, lying chutzpah. You have no honor.

144 posted on 01/12/2003 7:19:59 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

"The Constitutional justifications are carefully laid out in the CSA. None of the drug legalization crowd on FR have ever managed to refute them." -roscoe-

"Endless baseless assertions", and another lie. That congressional 'finding' has been well refuted several times on FR by reputable, legally trained men, -- - perhaps even by WT himself.
You are well aware of that fact roscoe, as both of us have been present on those occasions.

As I say, you have no honor. Get lost.
145 posted on 01/12/2003 7:31:09 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
That was a argument many founders had against the Bill of Rights, they were afraid that if any rights were listed, than sooner or later only those listed would be considered protected. Guess what,they were right. Thank God that the Bill of Rights is there, or some would be arguing that we have NO RIGHTS, except what the govt was willing to extend to us. Subject to change, of course.
146 posted on 01/12/2003 8:44:55 PM PST by btcusn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
WT cites Slaughterhouse

Which doesn't say that "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."

And ff course, you can produce no such assertion from the court. No cites or fake cites are your speed.

147 posted on 01/12/2003 8:57:29 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
That congressional 'finding' has been well refuted several times on FR by reputable, legally trained men,

False, as always.

148 posted on 01/12/2003 8:58:20 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well, Wyoming is a weird place. It's freezing outside, and I've been cooped up in my cabin too long.
149 posted on 01/12/2003 9:00:04 PM PST by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"WT cites Slaughterhouse"

Which doesn't say that "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow." -roscoe-


Well roscoe, - of course you produce no such assertion from the court. Post em if you gottem.
Make your point. - I"m sure that WT can refute you.

150 posted on 01/12/2003 10:39:38 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-748 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson