Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

bigstick61 wrote: The States can pass laws banning drugs; it is a State right to decide the matter. I'm sure you'll find most States will ban drugs regardless of whether the Federal government does. Where there is conflict, Congress can help regulate; a good example of this is the recent bill regarding girls crossing State lines to get an abortion without having to have their parents notified. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the law should rule, not the will of the majority or of the government; such is how a republic works. To support the ignoring of Constitutional provisions sets a bad precedent.


This may be why the feds can use interstate commerce as a justification. If the majority of states ban something but a few dont. it will create an interstate commerce of the banned item. Just typing out loud havent given this much thought.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The States can pass laws banning drugs; it is a State right to decide the matter. I'm sure you'll find most States will ban drugs regardless of whether the Federal government does. Where there is conflict, Congress can help regulate; a good example of this is the recent bill regarding girls crossing State lines to get an abortion without having to have their parents notified. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the law should rule, not the will of the majority or of the government; such is how a republic works. To support the ignoring of Constitutional provisions sets a bad precedent.


This may be why the feds can use interstate commerce as a justification. If the majority of states ban something but a few dont. it will create an interstate commerce of the banned item. Just typing out loud havent given this much thought.

No, you are right. The interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond belief. Between that clause and the general welfare clause, the limitations placed on the Federal government by the constitution have become null and void.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: [

No, you are right. The interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond belief. Between that clause and the general welfare clause, the limitations placed on the Federal government by the constitution have become null and void.

yes the founders were able to foresee so much they really should have left out such a vague term as" the general welfare".

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [

No, you are right. The interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond belief. Between that clause and the general welfare clause, the limitations placed on the Federal government by the constitution have become null and void.

yes the founders were able to foresee so much they really should have left out such a vague term as" the general welfare".

Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.

/////////

South Carolina's William Drayton put it best in 1828:

If Congress can determine what constitutes the General Welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money? How few objects are there which money cannot accomplish! ...Can it be conceived that the great and wise men who devised our Constitution... should have failed so egregiously... as to grant a power which rendered restriction upon power practically unavailing? 12

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp102005.html

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [

No, you are right. The interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond belief. Between that clause and the general welfare clause, the limitations placed on the Federal government by the constitution have become null and void.

yes the founders were able to foresee so much they really should have left out such a vague term as" the general welfare".

Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.

/////////

South Carolina's William Drayton put it best in 1828:

If Congress can determine what constitutes the General Welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money? How few objects are there which money cannot accomplish! ...Can it be conceived that the great and wise men who devised our Constitution... should have failed so egregiously... as to grant a power which rendered restriction upon power practically unavailing? 12

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp102005.html

great stuff!

[Sukoi]

lovebush wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The States can pass laws banning drugs; it is a State right to decide the matter. I'm sure you'll find most States will ban drugs regardless of whether the Federal government does. Where there is conflict, Congress can help regulate; a good example of this is the recent bill regarding girls crossing State lines to get an abortion without having to have their parents notified. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the law should rule, not the will of the majority or of the government; such is how a republic works. To support the ignoring of Constitutional provisions sets a bad precedent.


This may be why the feds can use interstate commerce as a justification. If the majority of states ban something but a few dont. it will create an interstate commerce of the banned item. Just typing out loud havent given this much thought. Well I guess that I'll have to ask this again: where exactly does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to ban ANYONE from the possession or consumption of ANY substance; especially vegetable matter?

[bigstick61]

The general welfare clause simply means that any money appropriated has to be for the general welfare or common defense of the Union, meaning that no State, other type of area, or person could be favored over another. It had to be for the whole country, or nothing at all. This is the clause which makes pork-barrel spending unconstitutional, because the appropriations go to a specific area rather than being a general expense.

The Federal government does not have any power to prohibit drugs. It may aid in regulating things between States which have different laws and can't settle things, but the power to regulate is not the power to prohibit, and this only is supposed to affect things actually being traded in interstate commerce, and was never meant to affect intrastate affairs in any way, as that is solely the jurisdiction of the individual States.

[Sukoi]

bigstick61 wrote: The general welfare clause simply means that any money appropriated has to be for the general welfare or common defense of the Union, meaning that no State, other type of area, or person could be favored over another. It had to be for the whole country, or nothing at all. This is the clause which makes pork-barrel spending unconstitutional, because the appropriations go to a specific area rather than being a general expense.

The Federal government does not have any power to prohibit drugs. It may aid in regulating things between States which have different laws and can't settle things, but the power to regulate is not the power to prohibit, and this only is supposed to affect things actually being traded in interstate commerce, and was never meant to affect intrastate affairs in any way, as that is solely the jurisdiction of the individual States.

Agreed; to an extent anyway... but I would have to agree with Brian when he says that people have rights but government entities do not; where is the power for the federal or state government granted to forbid me from eating a cucumber? And/or cannabis???

[bigstick61]

There is none at all. None of the enumerated powers permit it, and therefore it is unconstitutional.

As for the States having rights in regards to the Federal government, Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say about their relationship to the Federal government:
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: We observe two completely seperate and almost independent governments, one which answers the ordinary daily needs of society without clear limitations, the other which acts in exceptional circumstances to meet certain general concerns with very clear limitations. I a word, there exist twenty-four small sovereign nation states which link together to form the body of the Union

It is this certain degree of sovereignty which gives the States rights, as all sovereign entities have these. However, this is only in relation to other governments. When we are talking about the relationship of governments with people, the government never has rights, only individuals do.

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Altering one's state of mind is not a fundamental right. I find it funny how people are always claiming things as fundamental rights which never were.

my good man, THE fundamental right is to exercise your will upon yourself. your mind is the most sacrosanct property you possess. if you honestly believe that you don't have the fundamental right to freely alter your own mind, then i'm afraid i can scarcely consider you human.

i find it funny how people can't comprehend that without the absolute right to act upon oneself as one sees fit, one simply has no rights.



Would you also argue that what one does in that altered state, if it harms or endangers someone else they should lose their liberty. and if they harm themselves they are solely responsible for their own medical expenses. I have a friend who thinks all drugs should be legal and also believes in socialized medicine. to me liberty must be coupled with responsibility. I dont see that likely to happen any time soon.

it seems to work with alcohol. gee, i wonder what we should do about people using different drugs. hmmmmmmmm ..... geee, this is really tough.

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [

No, you are right. The interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond belief. Between that clause and the general welfare clause, the limitations placed on the Federal government by the constitution have become null and void.

yes the founders were able to foresee so much they really should have left out such a vague term as" the general welfare".

Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.

/////////

South Carolina's William Drayton put it best in 1828:

If Congress can determine what constitutes the General Welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money? How few objects are there which money cannot accomplish! ...Can it be conceived that the great and wise men who devised our Constitution... should have failed so egregiously... as to grant a power which rendered restriction upon power practically unavailing? 12

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp102005.html

great stuff!

in federalist 41 madison (the guy who actually wrote the constitution) made it abundantly clear that the use of the words "general welfare" was in no way to be interpreted as the granting of a penultimate power to the government.

perhaps they don't teach anyone about the federalist papers anymore.

[bigstick61]

Apparently not. So many judicial rulings these days fly in the face of what was said in the Federalist Papers; they are clearly erroneous, but given the status of being factual and nearly absolute, which is part of today's problem.

[Sukoi]

bigstick61 wrote: Apparently not. So many judicial rulings these days fly in the face of what was said in the Federalist Papers; they are clearly erroneous, but given the status of being factual and nearly absolute, which is part of today's problem.

I say this with sadness but you are correct... We need to change that!

[lovebush]

brian bennett wrote: [

it seems to work with alcohol. gee, i wonder what we should do about people using different drugs. hmmmmmmmm ..... geee, this is really tough.


Sure it works great I know people who have destroyed their bodys drinking and are on permenent disabiulity, the state pays for their housing, food and medical bills. lets remember"the state" , thats me and you! hmmmmmmm.........geee great plan!

[sunwook]

brian bennett wrote:
the 14th says that the states have to treat the citizens as equals too. the states thus also have no legitmate powers to punish those who act upon themselves in accordance with their own will to do so. nor do they have the penultimate power to declare life forms "illegal."


But one could argue that by doing drugs, not only are you harming yourself, but you are harming others in society. Say you smoke weed and decide to go driving, and harm someone else. Preventing something like that by banning marijuana could be allowed.

[bigstick61]

The solution is for the States to ban driving while high, just like they ban driving while drunk. In either case it is DUI and does not necessitate a total ban on marijuana, or do you also propose to ban alcohol as well?

[sunwook]

We've made an amendment for that, we can do it again : )

(Even if the amendment was repealed later)

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote: [

it seems to work with alcohol. gee, i wonder what we should do about people using different drugs. hmmmmmmmm ..... geee, this is really tough.


Sure it works great I know people who have destroyed their bodys drinking and are on permenent disabiulity, the state pays for their housing, food and medical bills. lets remember"the state" , thats me and you! hmmmmmmm.........geee great plan!

got any data to back yourself up? how much money is spent as you suggest?

the vast majority of drug users (yes, regardless of drug) do not cause problems for themselves or others. they even have jobs and pay taxes into the system you are worried about over burdening.

if you want to play games about who "costs" money, then i'm afraid that you'll have to go after the fat people and those with sunburns. fat people "cost" society way more than all the drug users combined, and (believe it or not) more than three times as many people die from skin cancer than from all illegal drugs combined.

if you don't want to see the persecution of the obese, i suggest you learn why we need to stop persecuting those who use the "wrong" intoxicants.

[brian bennett]

sunwook wrote: brian bennett wrote:
the 14th says that the states have to treat the citizens as equals too. the states thus also have no legitmate powers to punish those who act upon themselves in accordance with their own will to do so. nor do they have the penultimate power to declare life forms "illegal."


But one could argue that by doing drugs, not only are you harming yourself, but you are harming others in society. Say you smoke weed and decide to go driving, and harm someone else. Preventing something like that by banning marijuana could be allowed.

first off, we can only legitimately hold accountable specifically those who directly transgress against an unwilling other. if someone crashes their car, does it really matter *why* they crashed? we can hold them accountable for the damages they cause -- and not have to give a second thought to the whys and wherefores. would you argue that knives should be illegal because someone used a knife to commit a crime?

the vast majority of drug users are not contributing to the levels of mayhem in our society. most drug users are not even readily identifiable -- that's why you have to test their pee to find them. they simply aren't causing very many problems.

the solution is blindingly obvious: punish those who directly transgress against an unwilling other and leave everyone else alone. it's called being "civilized."

next, if the users aren't allowed to blame their behaviors on the drugs, then neither are we.

finally, if you look at the measures of drug use and compare them to the levels of mayhem (like traffic stats) you may be surprised to see what's there.

here is the data on drug use: http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/nsduh.htm

and here is the traffic data:
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/traffic/traffic.htm

all the little graphics are links to full scale graphics with the data itself and interlink with other facets of the appropriate data, so click around a little bit.

over the past several decades there are more drug users, more drivers, more cars, more miles driven -- but the numbers of fatalities and crashes are remaining mostly constant.

the same applies to all the other cherished myths we have about the impacts of drug use on society. yes, there are some bad apples out there. but they are actually few and far between: both as a proportion of society, and as a proportion of drug users.

it ain't the drugs -- it's the people.

[brian bennett]

sunwook wrote: We've made an amendment for that, we can do it again : )

(Even if the amendment was repealed later)

notice that no amendment was made to address the other drugs.

the government has not been legitimately empowered to punish people for what they do to themselves, nor to declare lifeforms "illegal."