0
skinnay

If little boys could get pregnant..

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Okay, I believe that private and public business should both be subject to certain basic restrictions, conditions, etc... and that public businesses could also be subject to other restrictions, conditions, etc.. These basic restrictions, conditions, etc.. should be constitutional and limited to protecting (based on scientific documentation) the employer, employees, consumers, public, environment, and other business. Considering the documented relationship between work and health I believe a health care plan should be applied to public businesses.

I consider churches (of the larger religions) to be public business and thus subject to restrictions, conditions, etc.. that should include a health care plan. I don't believe the separation of church (in regards to the larger religions) and state exists. Thus, until churches (of the larger religions) separate themselves from the state I do not consider the entanglement to be problematic.

Your turn ... why do you consider drug prohibition (without a constitutional amendment) to be constitutional?



Yes
I do not think it is a constititional issue

I agree with basic regulations (a better word than restrictions)

I do not see HC as any business of the gov in any manner but, I do see states regulating HC insurance companies at a basic level



Yes is not an answer to my question. I didn't ask yes or no, I asked why. I'll ask a yes or no. Do you believe that drug prohibition is constitutional?

PS: I put restrictions, conditions, etc... so that you could choose your preferred definition (such as regulations).
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from



Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to.

PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from



Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to.

PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.



I can agree with the religious comment

I do not see anyplace in the constitituion that address drugs one way or the other.

the alcohol thing was a debacle from the start
That makes no sense no matter how you look at it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...130 posts in this thread, with roughly 124 of them from men, and 6 from women, arguing over whether churches should be required to provide birth control...to women.

Is this Speakers Corner or a Senate subcommittee? :P

Doctor I ain't gonna die,
Just write me an alibi! ---- Lemmy/Slash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from



Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to.

PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.



I can agree with the religious comment

I do not see anyplace in the constitituion that address drugs one way or the other.

the alcohol thing was a debacle from the start
That makes no sense no matter how you look at it



It doesn't make sense to you (and your point of view). It makes sense to others (and their point of view). That you lack the ability to view things from other perspectives speaks volumes ...

Prior to the 18th amendment there were numerous States with alcohol prohibition laws (which was constitutional). However, in order for the Unites States to create a law prohibiting alcohol (that was constitutional) they needed to create the 18th amendment because of the 10th amendment. Do you know how they circumvented the 10th amendment to prohibit drugs? I doubt it ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from



Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to.

PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.



http://libertymaven.com/2009/10/06/drugs-and-the-constitution/7584/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from



Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to.

PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.



http://libertymaven.com/2009/10/06/drugs-and-the-constitution/7584/



That is basically what I wrote in my previous post.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"to promote the general welfare"

banning drugs promotes the general welfare.



So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans.



Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that making drugs legal does not promote the general welfare. Quite the contrary. Unless you are willing to argue that people being stoned out of their minds is good for society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from

The constitution does not confer the right to do anything per se. It does define the right of the federal government to restrict some things. Other than that, you are assumed to have the right to do as you wish. For example, the constitution does not enumerate the right to drive a car, skydive, etc. How could it? There are a bazillion things people do, and many of them didn't exist when the constitution was written, how could the constitution be expected to list all the things that are allowed?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hmm...130 posts in this thread, with roughly 124 of them from men, and 6 from women, arguing over whether churches should be required to provide birth control...to women.

Is this Speakers Corner or a Senate subcommittee? :P



unlike the Senate, women are free to speak here. It's a voluntary choice to do or not to.

But...what has better gender representation - the US Congress, or the sport of skydiving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"to promote the general welfare"

banning drugs promotes the general welfare.



So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans.



Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that making drugs legal does not promote the general welfare. Quite the contrary. Unless you are willing to argue that people being stoned out of their minds is good for society.



Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that you don't understand the constitution.

PS: I mentioned that drug prohibition by the United States was unconstitutional. I didn't mention (or argue) anything about what is good for society, you did.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"to promote the general welfare"

banning drugs promotes the general welfare.



So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans.



Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that making drugs legal does not promote the general welfare. Quite the contrary. Unless you are willing to argue that people being stoned out of their minds is good for society.



Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that you don't understand the constitution.

PS: I mentioned that drug prohibition by the United States was unconstitutional. I didn't mention (or argue) anything about what is good for society, you did.



That wasn't me arguing anything. That was the Constitution talking.

Please explain how legalizing drugs and having a bunch of tweak-heads wandering around like zombies promotes the general welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That wasn't me arguing anything. That was the Constitution talking.

Please explain how legalizing drugs and having a bunch of tweak-heads wandering around like zombies promotes the general welfare.



Please explain how drug prohibition by the United States without a constitutional amendment is not unconstitutional given the 10th amendment.

If you want to use "to promote the general welfare" as your argument then be prepared for others to use "to promote the general welfare" as their argument (in regards to things like mandating birth control in health care plans).

PS: If you bothered to read you would notice that I mentioned that States have the constitutional right to prohibit drugs. However, the United States doesn't without a constitutional amendment.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Tenth Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn't a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"to promote the general welfare"

banning drugs promotes the general welfare.



So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans.


Nope
Not covered under that clause
The Obama Admin knows that too because during Supreme court hearing on Obama care, the admin is arguing that the insurance mandate fine, for not having insurance, is a tax. They know they have the power to tax. They (the fed) does not have the power to mandate at this level

That said, I do not think the fed should be involved in the drug legalization. I think that should be left to the states

BTW, it is sad how the libs like to bastardize the general welfare clause[:/]
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from

The constitution does not confer the right to do anything per se. It does define the right of the federal government to restrict some things. Other than that, you are assumed to have the right to do as you wish. For example, the constitution does not enumerate the right to drive a car, skydive, etc. How could it? There are a bazillion things people do, and many of them didn't exist when the constitution was written, how could the constitution be expected to list all the things that are allowed?

Don


The constitution enumerates the specific powers of the fed gov. All else is to be left to the states



We are way way past that at this point
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When the Tenth Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn't a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did.



Try again. The 14th amendment does not increase the United States powers, it decreases the States powers in regards to depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Promoting the "general welfare" is a Federal responsibility. Preventing drugs from coming into the country is definitely a Federal responsibility. To transfer that to the states is just plain dumb. Even if it were transfered to the states, they would never lealize drugs other than marijuana for very long.

Sorry, but the Ron Paulers aren't going to get drugs legalized and Ron Paul is never going to be President. Even if he was elected, he would be impeached even if he found the authority to legalize drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"to promote the general welfare"

banning drugs promotes the general welfare.



So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans.


Nope
Not covered under that clause


I wasn't suggesting it was. I was merely attempting to show this person the error of their argument.

Quote

That said, I do not think the fed should be involved in the drug legalization. I think that should be left to the states



Agreed. It should be a State issue (at least until a constitutional amendment is passed).

Quote

BTW, it is sad how the libs like to bastardize the general welfare clause[:/]



You realize it wasn't a liberal who introduced this to the thread. ;)

So now that we understand that you believe that drug prohibition by the United States is unconstitutional let's move on to the next issue. Homosexual marriage ... marriage is not mentioned in the constitution and thus it should be a State Power. Agreed?
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So now that we understand that you believe that drug prohibition by the United States is unconstitutional let's move on to the next issue. Homosexual marriage ... marriage is not mentioned in the constitution and thus it should be a State Power. Agreed?



Yes
I do
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Promoting the "general welfare" is a Federal responsibility. Preventing drugs from coming into the country is definitely a Federal responsibility. To transfer that to the states is just plain dumb. Even if it were transfered to the states, they would never lealize drugs other than marijuana for very long.



Do you understand the difference between prohibiting drugs within a state and prohibiting drugs from crossing state or national borders? One is unconstitutional, the other is constitutional. Go learn something before responding ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Where do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?

Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from

The constitution does not confer the right to do anything per se. It does define the right of the federal government to restrict some things. Other than that, you are assumed to have the right to do as you wish. For example, the constitution does not enumerate the right to drive a car, skydive, etc. How could it? There are a bazillion things people do, and many of them didn't exist when the constitution was written, how could the constitution be expected to list all the things that are allowed?

Don


The constitution enumerates the specific powers of the fed gov. All else is to be left to the states

Agreed.

So how do you get from that to the notion that we as "the people" must have specific "permission", explicitly written into the Constitution, to drive a car, skydive, or do drugs?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0