Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
None of us like to see, for instance, 'evil' drugs bring used in the repugnant acts of drug abusers. --
-- But we must realise that the enforcement of outright prohibitions violate rights far more than their acts justify.
--Reasonable state/local regulations, as per booze, are thus constitutional. Bans are not.
posted on 02/04/2003 3:09:27 PM PST
We do have to clarify our thoughts don't we. So easy to "run amok with snippets", isn't it.
Good info and I would like to add that codes, rules, regulations, etc. are not constitutional unless they were created by the normal legislative process. Codes, regulations, etc. mandated by local gov'ts. are not constitutional because they were created under "color of law" and do not apply to citizens. Our biggest problem is that we have an estimated 60 million+ codes, rules, reg's etc. on the books, the vast majority of which were created as revenue producers.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson