Posted on 09/07/2009 3:09:41 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
Continue your authoritarian bull on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334012/posts
The post that if the dead pastor saved one kid from smoking a joint, it was worth it, I thought was you and serious until I saw it was someone else and sarcasm.
I know that you know that ain’t true! :-)
LLS
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted.
- James Madison, before the House of Representatives, February 7, 1792
LOL!
Racist? Why because it’s illegal aliens Mexican Drug Cartels growing it all over the nation in our parks and forests and burning down 88,000 acres...at least...in California last month??
An admirable attempt to reason with these folks, but it’s a lost cause. Some FReepers would be happy with nothing less than total legalization of any and all drugs no matter what sort of impact that has on society around them. You see, they are responsible users, and to heck with everyone else. It’s all about their liberty to get high. I equate them with the 2nd Amendment folks who believe they should be able to own howitzers, chemical weapons, or nuclear bombs. To make matters worse, these folks attack other conservatives because we’re not pure enough. As the liberals wrap society in a cocoon of socialism, even going so far as to threaten our access to health care (!), the druggies are pissed at us that we won’t fight for their right to get high. Pathetic!
Keep your authoritarian hands off my nuclear bombs too!
"In fact, the general welfare clause covers drugs with no stretch at all. It is just the sort of thing that clause was intended to address."
Do you agree with the above statement on the GW Clause... yes or no?
2. Do you think the Wickard ruling is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... yes or no?
-snip-
Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
13 Feb. 1829, Letters 4:14--15
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html
The government has the authority to own howitzers, chemical weapons, or nuclear bombs, needless to say. Where do you suppose they got that authority? Where does the power of the government come from under our Constitution?
1) No, I don’t think the federal government has broad authority to take actions based on the “general welfare.” Its powers are well defined, and anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved by the states.
2) No, I don’t agree with Wickard. I don’t think it fits an original or even reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause.
None of this means I support legalized drugs. The states certainly have the authority to restrict pretty much whatever they restrict, including homosexual activity (SCOTUS usurpations notwithstanding).
Of course, we are well, well beyond all that now. Ending the drug war is far down on my list. Short of revolution and all the massive risks that entails, we aren’t going to change 80 years of socialism overnight. It’s going to take time. I’d like to see some push back toward the right. That’s a reasonable expectation.
The government gets its power from the people. That still doesn’t mean I want my neighbor to have a fully operational 155mm howitzer.
Why not? Do you think they'd shoot it at you? Do you also not want them to have a nitro jet boat, a 60' RV, or some other kind of recreational equipment?
Just because they're legally permitted to own a 60' RV doesn't mean they must be allowed to park it on the street.
In most states, your neighbor is already permitted to own a grenade launcher and 50-caliber machine gun under certain regulatory restrictions, so do you object to that particular adherence to the Constitution as well?
That's the thing about restoring freedom - you don't centrally plan it. Some people work on firearms freedom aspects of 80 years worth of socialism, other people work on pharmaceutical freedom aspects of 80 years worth of socialism. That's how it goes with freedom.
Rolling back the police/prison state may be down on your list, but it's nearer the top of other peoples' lists.
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare...the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body.”
Really? Does it come down to a matter of reading comprehension?
Try again.
“Continue your authoritarian bull on this thread”
See tag line.
The list of what is not “racist” is pretty short.
And I’m surprised that anyone still falls for that particular sophistry even now, almost 50 years after it was coined.
If I feel like it, I’ll explain in more detail after work. Though you really should be able to figure it out for yourself.
Wait a minute! No, I guess that’s not really the case.
Because if a neighbor messes up with a 155mm shell, the whole neighborhood goes up in flames with him. Do you not understand the concept of a middle ground somewhere between total freedom (anarchy) and totalitarianism?
I’m assuming states that permit grenade launchers and 50 caliber machine guns have regulations to reduce the risk to the general population. But you either missed my point early on or are simply ignoring it.
There are people who are gun, drug and porn absolutists who tolerate no government restrictions on their liberty whatsoever. They are essentially anarchists who benefit from a stable, governed society, but don’t apparently understand one has to give something up in return for civilized society.
Then there’s this massive group of people somewhere in the middle who understand that crystal meth and 155mm howitzers shouldn’t be readily available to private citizens.
Finally, the US Constitution does not guarantee your right to get high. It’s supposed to restrain the federal government, but a state can lock you up (legitimately) if a majority of its citizens vote to ban a drug and you violate that ban.
(And I’d be one of those voting to ban it, too)
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.