close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Yep, let's legalize drugs...

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by Detectorist, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    43,505
    11,095
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    All of the parts. That is the nature of constitutions and laws. Cases are written in detail to account for things that have already happened. Laws are written generally, to try to account for future possibilities. The higher the levle, the more general it is - the constitution being the highest level of all and being written appropriately for that level. In fact, nobody has managed to write one on par since, for the very reasons argued about here - because they try and make it more clear and specific, which leads to unforseen future problems. We only have forseeable future whiners who don't get what they want.
     
  2. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

    Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

    No.

    The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

    If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

    Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.
     

  3. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    43,505
    11,095
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    Well,

    A. you are wrong - the constitution is federal law and the interpretation of federal law is done by the judiciary.

    B. If not the courts, who do you suggest should do it instead?

    C. If you think the constitution clearly lays out the powers of the government, so it needs no interpretation, then you don't know enough about it to even begin this discussion. The state and federal law affecting my state, for example, would fill a library (and does fill several libraries) yet even that doesn't lay it out so clearly that courts aren't required to answer new questions about what it means, every single day.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  4. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    By our inaction we have allowed the federal government to reach so far past it's constitutional authority that we have reached the point of no return. It's powers are listed and limited. That list is widely available and has been posted in this thread. If that power isn't there guess what folks, it doesn't exist. Your education has let you down if the wording of the 10A is beyond your reading comprehension.
     
  5. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    A. No I'm not. The SCOTUS has a limited amount of cases to hear. Federal drug laws aren't under it's purview because federal drug laws aren't suppose to exist.

    B. Once again, the cases they should be hearing won't be in regards to the BOR. Those laws were left tot he States because the BOR is a restriction on the federal government. NO branches of the federal courts get to legislate those.

    C. The powers given to the federal government are quite clear nothing else applies. Would you like me to post that list again?
     
  6. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    Judicial review doesn't exit. We are allowing the SCOTUS to rule from the bench by our inaction.
     
  7. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    53,940
    6,137
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    While I generally respect your opinion even when I disagree with it, this is patently wrong. The Bill of Rights is incredibly clear and specific. It was written in the language of the day, but not written in an unclear manner or vaguely.

    Where is this vagueness?

    Please point out where the Bill of Rights is vague.

    Lets look at the main body of the COTUS:

    Vague?

    Vague?

    Vague?

    You get my point.

    The COTUS is a legal document that is very specific. Men with an agenda have muddied the water.
     
  8. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    So, to recap, you don't think the Judicial branch should be interpreting the Constitution or laws made under authority ostensibly granted by it.

    You think we should vote on it as a referendum? Every law? Or what, if not that? I'm unclear here as to exactly what it is that you are proposing.

    Or if you are just saying, "If I say a law is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, and I don't have to obey it", then just admit that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  9. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    53,940
    6,137
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    The Constitution is not vague about the fed's role in drug smuggling either. Article I Section 8

    Very clear and specific. Not vague at all.

    Any ideas as to why the junkie needs so much money to buy his heroin? Are poppies rare? How much was a fifth of whisky during prohibition, adjusted for inflation. Was there crime associated with acquiring it?

    Why are cuban cigars so expensive? Cost of production in cuba where they drive 1950's cars?

    Easy as a pack of gum? The WOD is working wonderfully.
     
  10. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.
     
  11. RC-RAMIE

    RC-RAMIE

    2,700
    1
    Mar 8, 2010
    So you want to ramp up the Federal Government involvement in the WOD?
     
  12. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    No, just the opposite.
     
  13. RC-RAMIE

    RC-RAMIE

    2,700
    1
    Mar 8, 2010
    Clear it up for me if you can, what would change that would make government smaller by switching it from a crime to a "threat to national security"?
     
  14. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    Treat it as espionage instead of a crime. Carlos Lehder was a perfect example.

    Lehder, an early member of the Medillin Cartel, was a dedicated communist and advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. His primary motivation in shipping massive amounts of cocaine to the U.S., by his own admission, was that it would be more effective than an atomic bomb in destroying America.

    Why did we look at that as a crime and devote millions of dollars in trying to prove it as a crime? There were much cheaper ways of dealing with Lehder available to us.

    So, why did we do it and why do we continue to do it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  15. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.

    I think that if we are to grant a power to a branch of the Federal government the States should ratify it. Currently Judicial Review as we have accepted it is not a power of the Judicial Branch of government. Those laws and interpretations belonged to the States.

    I don't think that ANY government should have the power to interpret it's own limits and power.

    To your second point, yes, an unconstitutional law or order is invalid and I believe it's our DUTY to right it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  16. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.

    Take his power away. Make it legal.
     
  17. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    53,940
    6,137
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    While the libertarian in me believes people should be free to destroy themselves, I agree with Series1811 here.

    The U.S. Government has the full Constitutional authority to regulate the import of products into the country. I don't think an influx of foreign cocaine is good for our society and it is within the purview of the feds to control the importation. If that determination is made it should be done with a degree of resolution that will make it successful, or not done at all. The U.S. government is powerful enough to stop it if desired.

    Likewise, the federal government should protect U.S. methamphetamine manufacturers from unfair trade practices of the Mexican cartels.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  18. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    In case anyone was interested this isn't a new debate. It's simply contrary to what a lot you were taught and what you see today. For those that feel it's the Judicial systems job to review law I say put it to the amendment process. If not it should be left to the State courts to decide as most Federal laws and agencies are unconstitutional to begin with and the SCOTUS isn't lawfully allowed to interpret change or alter the BOR.

    Lew Rockwell Judicial Review v Constitutional Government

    Mises.Org Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts

    The Heritage Foundation The Transformation of Judicial Review in America
     
  19. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,468
    151
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    I agree with his international point as well. After all that sort of trade and commerce is the purview of the Federal Government However I've not seen a lot of success in regards to the WoD. We already legitimately fight that war and we are losing. At what point do we change tactics I don't know.
     
  20. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    So, if as a law enforcement officer, I think that the law against intercepting wireless cell phone transmissions (Title III), which are passing right through my body, and which I feel the Constitution puts these conversations in my lawful possession, is unconstiutional, it is okay for me to start listening in on these conversations already in my possession?

    Or, is this law constitutional because you feel it is, regardless of what I feel?