 |
 |
 |
 |
#160725 - 02/17/05 11:06 AM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Ryan Ruck
Member
Registered: 07/05/01
Posts: 2771
Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
Gaar,
Thanks for helping keep the forum orderly by starting a new thread! It makes our (the mods and admins) job far easier, much appreciated! 
quote:
Something about the "pursuit of Happiness" and the unConstitutionality of Legislating Morals you don't get Ryan?
I’m simply pointing out the cold, hard facts. There is no specific Amendment in the BOR that states you can use any drug you’d like. There is one, however, stating that I may have any armament I like.
As I said (and will reiterate) because of the 10th Amendment, I believe this is a states’ rights issue and should be left up to the individual states as to how they want to handle it.
quote:
I see you also missed my point about if they weren't illegal to begin with people would be much less likely to "commit" a crime during their use.
Indeed I did. Thanks for catching that.
It’s easy to simply erase a law and make an action no longer criminal to simply “reduce crime”. That’s what I was attempting to point out with my “child rape” comparison. And, similar to what President Bush is planning on doing this with his amnesty for the 20 million illegals in this country. By mere stroke of the pen 20 million felons will no longer be felons. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t commit a crime in the first place.
quote:
And then you go and compare a victimless crime to "Child Rape"?!?! Does it surprise me that you believe the two to be similar offenses, no...
Well, I’ll play devil’s advocate here, consensual child / adult sex is a victimless crime as well. I mean, look at the recent incidences of school teacher / student sexual encounters. There were no victims there. The students wanted to have sex with their adult teachers and the teachers wanted to have sex with the children. So where was there a “crime” committed?
(DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT condone child / adult sex!! I’m simply trying to make a point!)
And what about bestiality? If there is no suffering for the animal, there is no victim! And therefore, shouldn’t a person be allowed to have as much sex with animals as they want?
(DISCLAIMER: I’m NOT condoning bestiality either!! I’m simply trying to make a point!)
And no, I do not believe them to be similar offenses. Child rape is far worse than simple drug use. Drug dealing and manufacturing on the other hand…
quote:
So instead of addressing my Constitutional Right to face an accuser you choose instead to make a comparison to an act that not only has a victim but you needed it to be a child to make what point exactly?!?!
I don’t know which accuser you would like to face… I’m a little confused with this point.
What I was pointing out with the comparison is no different than what NAMBLA and other similar groups advocate.
(DISCLAIMER: Again, I DO NOT condone child / adult sex!! I’m simply trying to make a point!)
quote:
Are you ever going to address the Constitutional question of my accuser or are you going to continue to just gloss over that point to make some other comparison that doesn't hold up under scrutiny?
Again, I’m not sure what accuser you want to face or what you are getting at with this…
quote:
And so perhaps you could explain how you "know" the intent of the sale of Cocaine in this Nation
I already told you I read Red Cocaine (and since you haven’t read the book, no, it doesn’t just talk about cocaine). The evidence is backed up by several different Soviet defectors which all stated the same… That Russia wanted to attack us covertly with drugs as chemical weapons.
Again, please read the book before passing judgment against it and its message.
quote:
I suppose you like that violent offenders are let out, it gives you more of an opportunity to use those weapons you cherish so much...
No, I don’t and that is one thing I believe is what is causing the downfall of our society. People that are hardened criminals are now being portrayed as having mental disabilities and victims by liberal judges and lawyers (ACLU). And, these criminals being out in society makes my job more dangerous.
The live fire practice couldn’t hurt though… Much better than those paper targets. 
quote:
Perhaps it's time we started a little petition to rid the U.S> of such things? After all, they have the potential to be even more harmful than those Drugs you despise so much.
Well, THAT would be unconstitutional (but not unattempted thanks to liberal, gun-grabbing politicians). As I said, because of the 2nd Amendment, I have a God-given and inalienable right to possess any armament I deem fit (or can afford! ) unlike there being NO God-given and inalienable right spelt out in the BOR to do drugs.
I will state yet again though, I believe it should be up to the states and ultimately up to the people to decide how they want to treat drugs. I’m sure that states like California and New York would be far more likely to allow them. In that case, those that don’t support those policies could move to places like Texas or Utah which likely wouldn’t support legal drugs.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#160726 - 02/17/05 12:24 PM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Actually Ryan, the Second Ammendment says...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So do you belong to a Militia? If not, I think you have overstepped your "Right", have you not?
So let me leave you with this: The Sixth Amendment states that accused people have a right to confront their accusers. It does not say they get to look them in the eye. The fact that it does not say that they get to look them in the eye does not mean “you don’t have a right to look them in the eye.” Besides the fact that Merriam-Webster Unabridged says that “confront” means “to put or bring face to face,” there is the fact that the Constitution does not say, “The government may construe the Sixth Amendment to be the sole explication of the rights of the accused with relation to any accusers.”
Thus, even without the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution does not say you do not have a right to have your accusers brought face-to-face with you.
And, remember,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. U.S. Const. amend. IX.
http://www.unspun.us/archives/000530.html
So, in other words Ryan, I believe you NEED to find a VICTIM in order to charge me with a crime...
And that we don't allow CHILDREN to "make-up" their own minds until they are 18 (16 for some things I guess) means that a CHILD CANNOT CONSENT to ANY SEXUAL ACT... Something about that YOU don't get?
So, shall we go after your Guns, or are you willing to admit that I have certain "inalienable" Rights too?
Regards,
Gaar
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160729 - 02/17/05 09:36 PM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Ryan Ruck
Member
Registered: 07/05/01
Posts: 2771
Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
Gaar,
quote:
Actually Ryan, the Second Ammendment says...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So do you belong to a Militia? If not, I think you have overstepped your "Right", have you not?
Yes. And (most likely) so do you!
Title 10: Section 311 of the United States Code:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
quote:
So, in other words Ryan, I believe you NEED to find a VICTIM in order to charge me with a crime...
I don’t want to charge you with a crime so long as you live in a state in which its citizens have chosen to permit drug use.
quote:
And that we don't allow CHILDREN to "make-up" their own minds until they are 18 (16 for some things I guess) means that a CHILD CANNOT CONSENT to ANY SEXUAL ACT... Something about that YOU don't get?
(Again, in the role of devil’s advocate.)
At the time of our nation’s founding, it wasn’t unheard of for girls as young as 14 to be married. And, in fact, it is still common practice in some countries to this day.
quote:
So, shall we go after your Guns
You missed the train on this one, it’s been going on since 1934!
quote:
or are you willing to admit that I have certain "inalienable" Rights too?
The inalienable rights you have are laid out in the US Constitution, US Bill of Rights, and Constitution of the state you reside in.
quote:
Perhaps you might have a bit more respect for Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on the matter...
Somewhat interesting that you should choose to quote Lincoln in this discussion. Quite a few Southerners regard Lincoln as one of the worst Presidents since they believe he ran roughshod over states’ rights when they attempted to secede from the Union. I, on the other hand, am saying that it is entirely dependant on the state you live in to decide how they wish to treat drugs.
quote:
Something about "Well Regulated" you don't get?
Gun Facts – Your Guide For Debunking Gun Control Myths
The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A
Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the
term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160730 - 02/17/05 09:59 PM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
So it's OK with you to subvert the Constitutional Rights as long as you are a State of the Union? How does that work?
It's ok, in your mind, to charge someone with a crime when no crime has been committed?
http://mu.clarityconnect.net/~ahimsa/lawful_arrest.html
Whether you are being arrested, witnessing an arrest, or sitting on a jury, this is the most important thing you need to know:
In every criminal case, always ask:
"What is the name of the victim, and the nature of the injury?"
"What is the name of the civilian that has made a complaint against the accused?"
"What is the evidence to suggest that the accused caused the injury to the victim?"
If they put the accused in jail, or threaten with this, then it is a criminal case.
http://mu.clarityconnect.net/~ahimsa/probable_cause.html
Remember that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from abuses committed by the government. But if "probable cause" is simply "reason to believe a crime has occurred", then it is the subjective determination of one person, the police officer, and an agent of the government. This interpretation offers the people little protection against harassment, given the number of obscure "laws" on the books that the people are subject to. Such a definition would give the police wide powers to detain just about anybody for any reason at any time. Hmmm....
WHICH CAME FIRST?
Also, there is a common misunderstanding as to the definition of "crime". Many people think that a crime is a "violation of the law", but this is a circular definition! Which came first, law or crime? If crime is "things which the law prohibits", and law defines "that which is crime", we have self-reference, a tautology, begging the question, a circular reference. Anyone who has studied logic will tell you that this has no meaning at all. (see any logic text, or: http://www.wdv.com/Writings/Stories/TheRules/fallacy.html)
The Founding Fathers wrote probable cause and not "reason to believe that a violation of the law occurred", because there was no law yet! They rejected English law, and they were defining the principles which would become their law. They obviously meant something different.
You see, we must all begin with an agreement of what is a crime BEFORE we codify the Law, or else we end up with a meaningless law that refers to itself, corruption of the courts, legislature, and the police, and people going to jail for absurd things like "possessing forbidden flowers", "not having proper paperwork", "having a bad opinion about the court" or "talking about doing something really nasty". (Wait! That IS what we have today...)
So again Ryan, please explain where you, the States or even the Federal Government garner any Constitutional Right to Legislate Morals? In order to Legislate ANYTHING you are going to have to define a "victim" to the act first, so I may face them when you charge me with the crime.
Just as the States had NO RIGHT to secede from the Union, they also have no Right to subvert my Constitutional Right to face an accuser if they are going to charge me with a crime.
Besides Ryan, according to you, all I need is a simple Majority to change the Constitution to take away your Right to bear Arms, right?!?!
By the way Ryan, I also own Guns and believe in the Right, I am just trying to get YOU to admit that “inalienable Rights” apply to anything that falls under “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, as long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s Rights… Your Rights end where my Rights begin, and vice versa.
I am just trying to find out where YOU believe you garner the Right to Legislate Morals is all… You have YET to address MY RIGHT to face an accuser, even after you asked me to clarify and I did so. Something you still don’t understand about the question?
Regards,
Gaar
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160731 - 02/17/05 10:38 PM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
And regarding your Gun Control stance...
http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment02/
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7
Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160732 - 02/17/05 11:52 PM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Ryan Ruck
Member
Registered: 07/05/01
Posts: 2771
Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
Gaar,
What are you trying to argue in this discussion?
That allowing states to choose how they want to treat drugs is not enough? That there should be a Constitutional amendment granting the ability for everyone to use any drug they want?
What is your goal here?
quote:
So it's OK with you to subvert the Constitutional Rights as long as you are a State of the Union? How does that work?
No.
A state may pass any law it deems fit as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.
Since drug use is not explicitly listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it is therefore left up to the states’ discretion.
quote:
So again Ryan, please explain where you, the States or even the Federal Government garner any Constitutional Right to Legislate Morals?
Again, we are back to my questions about child sex and bestiality.
Just because you may find those acts abhorrent doesn’t mean everyone else does (I most certainly do!).
So, where do you get off telling people they cannot engage in child sex or bestiality? Are you now trying to “legislate morality”?
quote:
Just as the States had NO RIGHT to secede from the Union
Well, this is one item that is still being debated!
I believe that the states did indeed have the right to secede as it wasn’t prohibited by the Constitution. BUT…  Lincoln (with Congress’ approval) also had the power to declare war against any sovereign nation (The Confederate States of America). Since the US was the winner in the Civil War, they then were awarded the lands and people belonging to that former nation.
quote:
Besides Ryan, according to you, all I need is a simple Majority to change the Constitution to take away your Right to bear Arms, right?!?!
No, you would need more than a simple majority. You would need to meet the criteria set forth in the amendment process. And even then, I’m not so sure that you would be legally able to get an amendment to repeal an original amendment. I don’t know for sure as I’m not a Constitutional scholar.
quote:
By the way Ryan, I also own Guns and believe in the Right, I am just trying to get YOU to admit that “inalienable Rights” apply to anything that falls under “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
This venue of argument is questionable in that the US Supreme Court measures laws as to their “Constitutionality” not their “Declaration of Independence-ality” from which “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is derived.
quote:
I am just trying to find out where YOU believe you garner the Right to Legislate Morals is all…
Because, when it comes right down to it, all laws are based on morality. What is civilization without morality? Take murder for instance or, perjury or, stealing or, rape or, child abuse… All based on a set of morals and all crimes. Should they not be criminal acts since they are based on morals?
quote:
You have YET to address MY RIGHT to face an accuser, even after you asked me to clarify and I did so. Something you still don’t understand about the question?
Your accuser would be the citizens of your locality.
You see, those citizens elect representatives to represent them and their views. Thus, when drug laws are enforced, they are acting in lieu of the citizens. This is how a representative republic works. We “hire” people to do our dirty work for us. Therefore, if you are prosecuted under drug laws, you are in effect answering to the majority group’s views on drugs.
quote:
And regarding your Gun Control stance...
My only stance on gun control is the Weaver-style stance. Though it is said the Isosceles stance is more accurate, it just didn’t feel right to me. But that is a topic for yet another thread!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160733 - 02/18/05 12:12 AM
Re: Constitutionality of Drug Laws
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan Ruck:
Gaar,
What are you trying to argue in this discussion?
That allowing states to choose how they want to treat drugs is not enough? That there should be a Constitutional amendment granting the ability for everyone to use any drug they want?
What is your goal here?
My Goal is to show you have NO RIGHT to make Laws which make Drugs absolutely illegal...
My Goal is to show that when you try and Legislate a person’s Morals you are going against the very foundation of the Constitution. You don’t have to Outlaw something to Regulate its use, do you?
So, just as Alcohol and Tobacco right now, you may feel free to make any Laws you wish to regulate their usage, it’s when you Outlaw them entirely that you and I have a problem..
Just as you don't like being considered a Criminal because you choose to exercise your Constitutional Right to own Guns, I don't think people should be considered Criminals for exercising their Constitutional Right to pursue Happiness, as long as that exercise doesn't infringe on anyone else’s Rights.
We make Laws to Regulate the use of many things in this Country. That doesn't mean they are illegal, you just can't use them in some ways that may be deemed to be abusive to Society... Like speeding in a car, you MAY not hurt someone but the potential is there and there is no real "Right" to drive a car, it is a privilege.
Regards,
Gaar
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator: penni, Ryan Ruck
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered
and 5 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
