Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

Any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land.
-- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc. -- Feel free, as long as you don't violate individual rights in doing so.
Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally. But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.
-- Our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.

Get the difference yet, texbaby? -- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it. Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.

paulsen blindly replies:
The citizens of each state decide how they will live together. Condos and communitarian communities are not necessary.

Dream on. Our Constitution stands.

[robertpaulsen]

"You dream for the day that I'll be required to answer correctly."

We all do, tpaine.

[tpaine]

Government has the power to jail, fine, and execute convicted criminals but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.

Government is only required to use individual due process when life, liberty, or property is at stake in the enforcement of constitutional laws.

Justice Harlan answers you best:

     "-- [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . .

Government is not required to use individual due process when writing laws.

Constitutional due process is required in the writing of laws. Laws repugnant to the Constitution are null & void from inception.

They may set the drinking age at 21, for example, even though an individual 20-year-old can prove himself to be more responsible than those older than he.

"-- broadly speaking, [due process] includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"

[tpaine]

Authoritarians/communitarians dream of required/correct answers paulsen.

Your slip is showing.

[robertpaulsen]

"Justice Harlan answers you best:"

Yes he does, especially when you quote the preface:

"Due process ... has represented the balance which our Nation ... has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing."

[tpaine]

Well, if you agree with Harlan on due process, than you concede my point.

Fat chance of that.

[Mojave]

No, no, due process means whatever is reasonable and not prohibitionary. Get it?

[tpaine]

Weird little troll roscoe. -- It's evident you're incapable of making an argument on your own.

Why is that?

[Texaggie79]

We can reasonably regulate use/storage of nuclear/biological/chemical materials, [much is privately owned] but we can't constitutionally prohibit possession.

Then how is it that I am prohibited from buying a nuclear weapon?

[Mojave]

You would have to store it away from the water heater pilot light.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

Then how is it that I am prohibited from buying a nuclear weapon?

Are you? Let's say you own an isolated island in the middle of the Pacific. -- Cite the Constitutional prohibition that applies.

[tpaine]

Don't forget that the 1.7 gallon flush toilet law may also apply in this case. [Check with your local building official]

[Texaggie79]

Ok, so if condition were so isolated, in an unrealistic way, I could have a nuke. Ok fine, same goes for crack.

[tpaine]

There you go tex, connecting the war on weapons with the war on crack, which makes my point.


" -- Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments.
Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition.
We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs. --"

__________________________________


The logical core of the article.

--- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.

[Texaggie79]

Well you want to legalize pot, I'll vote to do so. But regulating Crack Cocaine is "reasonable" in my book, so no help there.

[tpaine]

Exactly, you're of "no help there" when it comes to fighting anti-constitutional forces, the neo-prohibitionists among us.

At best, you're a fellow traveler.

[Texaggie79]

Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes? You traveler?

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?

There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns. -- People like you.

[commonerX]

"""No, no, due process means whatever is reasonable and not prohibitionary. Get it?"""

Why do people keep replying to this guy.

He's provided over and over again that he doesn't or refuses to understand that people will do drugs whether they are legal or illegal and no laws will change that. The best we can do is damage control and minimize it's impact on the majority that don't.

[Texaggie79]

I think we have fairly reasonable regulations

Think..... fairly.... reasonable. Such sound facts you have on this issue.