USFREEDOM WTF IS THAT PICTURE IN YOUR SIG AND WHY IS IT BLAMING PEOPLE ON DRUGS

As a practical matter, either getting everyone to stop using drugs or ending drug prohibition would work to save lives. And only one of those two is in any way feasible.
 
Wickedjews said:
As a practical matter, either getting everyone to stop using drugs or ending drug prohibition would work to save lives. And only one of those two is in any way feasible.
Click to expand...

In a sense you are correct; but I doubt that either will occur, so maybe intelligent compromises need to be considered.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
In a sense you are correct; but I doubt that either will occur, so maybe intelligent compromises need to be considered.
Click to expand...

I think marijuana is likely to be legalized within the next few decades. Some drugs like meth and heroin I wouldn't support legalizing, but ending the illegality of marijuana would solve most of the problems anyway and allow us to concentrate on the production and distribution of the hard drugs.
 
Ice Dancer said:
In order that individuals could pursue liberty the founder's sought a government that created laws that protect and ensure the common good.

The need to balance that with individual rights is THE bedrock of our Constitution. I submit that is why as a Constitutional republic with a representative government we best ensure this ideal. Individual liberty in a nation of laws does not equal I get my way. Madison tackled this dilema in the Federlalist #10

Substance abuse is a concern of the common good.
Click to expand...

The common good IS liberty. Madison took on the matter of factions, holding conflicting views on what liberty is. He did not say that liberty should be compromised over factionalism, though.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Maybe you're able to reach that conclusion, with your feeble abilities; but stating it does not make it the truth and that was nothing I promoted.

So you believe that it's the Government's fault, regarding the children poisoned by the chemicals used for making meth, and those making or using the meth bear no responsibility??
Click to expand...

Obviously, the government might have an interest in controlling meth production, because of how destructive the process is to the infrastructure and ecology around it. Does it not control other products for the same reasons already?
 
Wickedjews said:
I think marijuana is likely to be legalized within the next few decades. Some drugs like meth and heroin I wouldn't support legalizing, but ending the illegality of marijuana would solve most of the problems anyway and allow us to concentrate on the production and distribution of the hard drugs.
Click to expand...

I agee; but unfortunetly, the majority of those that need to mobilize would rather sit around and bitch about how unfair life is.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I agee; but unfortunetly, the majority of those that need to mobilize would rather sit around and bitch about how unfair life is.
Click to expand...

For the record, I am not an activist. You would not see me out marching for any issue. I demand simply that my legislators do their damn job when they go to Washington. I sit around and discuss politics and history, because it is a fun, informative, leisurely experience. For me, give me the smoke-filled clubhouse room any day over the noisy, crowd-packed streets.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I agee; but unfortunetly, the majority of those that need to mobilize would rather sit around and bitch about how unfair life is.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
For the record, I am not an activist. You would not see me out marching for any issue. I demand simply that my legislators do their damn job when they go to Washington. I sit around and discuss politics and history, because it is a fun, informative, leisurely experience. For me, give me the smoke-filled clubhouse room any day over the noisy, crowd-packed streets.
Click to expand...

I wasn't specifically referring to you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I agee; but unfortunetly, the majority of those that need to mobilize would rather sit around and bitch about how unfair life is.
Click to expand...

That's not a fair statement. Obviously you are unaware of the meaning of "Veg out". While amphetamine users may be jumping up and down while holding a sign many other drug users would find simply showing up at a demonstration to be overly strenuous. :)
 
apple0154 said:
That's not a fair statement. Obviously you are unaware of the meaning of "Veg out". While amphetamine users may be jumping up and down while holding a sign many other drug users would find simply showing up at a demonstration to be overly strenuous. :)
Click to expand...

You haven't shown why my statement was unfair.
In affect, you have supported it.
 
Threedee said:
The common good IS liberty. Madison took on the matter of factions, holding conflicting views on what liberty is. He did not say that liberty should be compromised over factionalism, though.
Click to expand...

No, he did not, he discussed instead that voting in legislators to represent us was the best solution to factionalism...not having the courts legislate what's popular or not popular or the majority deciding in a vote. That this is the best way to both protect individual liberty while balancing the common good.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, he did not, he discussed instead that voting in legislators to represent us was the best solution to factionalism...not having the courts legislate what's popular or not popular or the majority deciding in a vote. That this is the best way to both protect individual liberty while balancing the common good.
Click to expand...

No one is asking the Courts to legislate popularity. People are asking the Courts to correctly apply judicial review, and strike down prohibition laws as unconstitutional. This is what happens when the Legislature fails, either due to factionalism, incompetence, or some other reason. Unless you are opposed to judicial review, and you wouldn't be the first, then you really shouldn't have an argument against that.
 
Madison believed that people would elect the "best person" in their district. In fact, that's one of the plusses he gave to having larger districts, because in total he believed the body would be made up of more excellent minds. I think it's obvious that his logic hasn't panned up.
 
Wickedjews said:
Madison believed that people would elect the "best person" in their district. In fact, that's one of the plusses he gave to having larger districts, because in total he believed the body would be made up of more excellent minds. I think it's obvious that his logic hasn't panned up.
Click to expand...

Geography is the best way to select a decent, and responsive member of Congress, because if you piss off you're neighbors, you'll hear about it.

Were there no moronic 17th Amendment, you would literally be able to walk over to the houses of your state representatives and senator, and ask them why the fuck they voted for Senator X, forcing the state congress to elect someone who is at least educated and qualified to be in the US Senate, if not someone who shares your views.
 
Threedee said:
No one is asking the Courts to legislate popularity. People are asking the Courts to correctly apply judicial review, and strike down prohibition laws as unconstitutional. This is what happens when the Legislature fails, either due to factionalism, incompetence, or some other reason. Unless you are opposed to judicial review, and you wouldn't be the first, then you really shouldn't have an argument against that.
Click to expand...

Factions are constantly asking courts to do just that! Legislators may not always legislate how we want them to do, that's why we continue to hold elections.

There is no power of judicial review established in the Constitution...so of course it begs the question.

Original Intent & Judicial Review

The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. What should be made of this fact? Does it suggest that the framers did not intend to give the courts such a power? Not necessarily, although that is one explanation for its absence. It is also possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the structure of government that it need not be expressly stated. A third possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because Congress would never pass legislation outside of its enumerated powers.

Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed. One delegate, James Wilson, argued that the courts should have the even broader power to strike down any unjust federal or state legislation. It may also be worth noting that over half of the thirteen original states gave their own judges some power of judicial review.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Factions are constantly asking courts to do just that! Legislators may not always legislate how we want them to do, that's why we continue to hold elections.

There is no power of judicial review established in the Constitution...so of course it begs the question.

Original Intent & Judicial Review

The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. What should be made of this fact? Does it suggest that the framers did not intend to give the courts such a power? Not necessarily, although that is one explanation for its absence. It is also possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the structure of government that it need not be expressly stated. A third possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because Congress would never pass legislation outside of its enumerated powers.

Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed. One delegate, James Wilson, argued that the courts should have the even broader power to strike down any unjust federal or state legislation. It may also be worth noting that over half of the thirteen original states gave their own judges some power of judicial review.
Click to expand...

We continue to hold elections (sweeping aside the numerous reasons which need not be reiterated) because it is the job of Congress to continue to draft the volumes of bills that it does, and to vote on them. Desirability of what they do has nothing to do with that. Few people will ever argue that the Courts should simply replace the Congress. What the hell are you trying to say?
 
Threedee said:
We continue to hold elections (sweeping aside the numerous reasons which need not be reiterated) because it is the job of Congress to continue to draft the volumes of bills that it does, and to vote on them. Desirability of what they do has nothing to do with that. Few people will ever argue that the Courts should simply replace the Congress. What the hell are you trying to say?
Click to expand...

Pretty simple there 3d; I am clearly saying that there are factions who attempt to use the courts to legislate. I NEVER said that people want to "replace" Congress.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Pretty simple there 3d; I am clearly saying that there are factions who attempt to use the courts to legislate. I NEVER said that people want to "replace" Congress.
Click to expand...

Very few of the laws that Congress weighs in on are attempts to make law, rather than to review laws. Yes, it happens, and it is a tyrannical and oppressive force, but it is rare when compared to everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top