Chuck Balwin to stem the flow of illegal drugs.video

[GunnyFreedom]

GunnyFreedom, I tried to send you a PM...

I just saw it, thanks! I have heard the same thing more than once. The pain is really mostly gone now; but another suggestion I have heard a lot about is an inversion table. I do prefer those kinds of solutions by far.

 

[familydog]

Since nobody has brought this up, I thought I'd share. Chuck Baldwin has spoken out on the "war on drugs."

Chuck Baldwin shares Barr's opinion that the war on drugs should be handled at the state level, not the federal.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=9111

Chuck Baldwin speaking out against the "war on drugs." As a previous poster suggested, the statement made in the OP is about the border, not the "war on drugs."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94

 

[Knightskye]

I'll try to find specific examples, but in my (admittedly) scant experience with seeing them both present their cases, Baldwin has struck me as saying what he believes outright, whether you like it or not, while Barr has struck me as the typical politician, where you actually have to unravel his statements to discover what he actually means.

I don't really want to support someone who intentionally speaks in a way where different people can interpret the message in different ways to suit their own politics. If someone has to shroud their statements in politic-speak in order to 'fool' people who don't necessarily agree with their policies into supporting them, then even if he does agree with my positions i don't really want to have anything to do with him.

Now, that said, I actually have VERY LITTLE direct knowledge of either one of them. My impressions could very well be false impressions based on too small of a data sample, and I recognize that. I have been leaning more towards Baldwin simply because I have known about Chuck Baldwin for 8 years now -- he is very well known in Christian circles.

But if Baldwin is running on the CP ticket, and favors prohibition and the drug war, then I'll have to shift towards Barr (and hold my nose in the voting booth) simply because in that case supporting the LP ticket would do the most good of all the options remaining to us.

Thanks for replying.

I'll try to come up with the sources which led me to my impressions of the two candidates cited above.

Hah. That made me think of the New York Times rejecting McCain's editorial piece. Only I don't think McCain is going to go back and edit it.

I don't really want to support someone who intentionally speaks in a way where different people can interpret the message in different ways to suit their own politics.

BALDWIN: "I believe the Federal Government has a role in keeping drugs out of the country."

Did Baldwin intentionally speak in that sort of way? Of course, the way I interpret this sentence drives me further away from supporting him.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, apparently Baldwin believes that any/all regulation of substances whatsoever, whether medicinal or recreational belongs at the state level, and that the Federal Gov't has no business in it whatsoever. Honestly, that is a policy I can agree with. I have always believed that within each state the citizenry ought to be able to create the environment which they wish to live in. There will always be more libertarian states, like Montana and Wyoming; moew liberal states like California and Illinois, and more conservative states like Texas and Georgia.

I have always believed that if people REALLY wanted to live in a fascist society, that they had every right to create one around themselves, so long as I were free to do likewise with a libertarian society. This is why I always favored the states rights position. Anyway, here is the text of the response:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glen, thanks for writing the campaign. Chuck and his team have been working hard, some traveling, some in offices to keep this campaign for presidency of the Land of the Free running smoothly and on target.

As you may know, we are the third largest party in the country. In poll after poll voters are saying that they will be willing to vote for a third party candidate. For too long this country has been locked in the pattern of a two party system. Guess what? That's not in the constitution! You have a choice and this year the only choice is Chuck Baldwin for President. Please join us so that together we can restore the constitutional principles that made our country strong. As many people as you can talk to, call, and email, the better. Do you write letters to the editor of newspaper in your area, or have a local radio station that is open to callers or advertisements? Any blog or company website can easily have a link to the Baldwin2008 campaign site.

We support abolishing the FDA, and therefore making null the misnamed "War on Drugs". The legislating or non-legislating of substances will be made completely an individual-states issue with no involvement or meddling from the Federal level.


The American people want tax relief! The American people want secure borders and safety for their families. The American people want relief from rising gas prices and from steadily increasing inflation!

The American people want to know that their sons will not be sent into a war without a constitutional declaration of war and that only when it is to protect and defend our land and people!

The American people want a choice!

This year the clear choice is Chuck Baldwin for President. We need your help as soon as possible. The site to donate to our efforts is at this link. Thank you and may God bless our efforts.

Sincerely,

Bethany

Campaign Correspondent

 

[Kalifornia]

OK, apparently Baldwin believes that any/all regulation of substances whatsoever, whether medicinal or recreational belongs at the state level, and that the Federal Gov't has no business in it whatsoever. Honestly, that is a policy I can agree with. I have always believed that within each state the citizenry ought to be able to create the environment which they wish to live in. There will always be more libertarian states, like Montana and Wyoming; moew liberal states like California and Illinois, and more conservative states like Texas and Georgia.

I have always believed that if people REALLY wanted to live in a fascist society, that they had every right to create one around themselves, so long as I were free to do likewise with a libertarian society. This is why I always favored the states rights position. Anyway, here is the text of the response:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glen, thanks for writing the campaign. Chuck and his team have been working hard, some traveling, some in offices to keep this campaign for presidency of the Land of the Free running smoothly and on target.

As you may know, we are the third largest party in the country. In poll after poll voters are saying that they will be willing to vote for a third party candidate. For too long this country has been locked in the pattern of a two party system. Guess what? That's not in the constitution! You have a choice and this year the only choice is Chuck Baldwin for President. Please join us so that together we can restore the constitutional principles that made our country strong. As many people as you can talk to, call, and email, the better. Do you write letters to the editor of newspaper in your area, or have a local radio station that is open to callers or advertisements? Any blog or company website can easily have a link to the Baldwin2008 campaign site.

We support abolishing the FDA, and therefore making null the misnamed "War on Drugs". The legislating or non-legislating of substances will be made completely an individual-states issue with no involvement or meddling from the Federal level.


The American people want tax relief! The American people want secure borders and safety for their families. The American people want relief from rising gas prices and from steadily increasing inflation!

The American people want to know that their sons will not be sent into a war without a constitutional declaration of war and that only when it is to protect and defend our land and people!

The American people want a choice!

This year the clear choice is Chuck Baldwin for President. We need your help as soon as possible. The site to donate to our efforts is at this link. Thank you and may God bless our efforts.

Sincerely,

Bethany

Campaign Correspondent

So youd vote for him as president but not as governor? I think that is somewhat short sighted, but at least it is intellectually consistent.

My understanding is that he also applies that reasoning to the bill of rights as well, and supports overturning case law that applies the the bill of rights to the states. Many in the CP hold that view. Its pretty much right wing christian social conservative dogma. They dont like the first amendment seperation of church and state doctrine, and would do away with it.

Im all for states rights, and I agree that allowing the states to compete with each other for residents based on their policies is a good idea, but I also consider the bill of rights to be so fundamental as a baseline of fundamental human freedoms that to give states the ability to remove those VERY basic protections is a huge step backwards.

I mean, what happens if SC decides tomorrow to start criminalizing twinkies, and makes that a capital offense? Are you cool with allowing a state that is part of the U.S. to execute twinky eaters? What about freedom of speech? Is it okay if tomorrow NY decides to start jailing people for saying the 'N' word? Or what about sodomy? I mean, if you take 'its okay for states to be fascist' far enough, there really isnt anything the states couldnt do if 51% of their population voted for it. Hell, up to half the population of a state could be a victim of instant ethnic or political cleansing if they dont act to move fast enough once a law is passed.

Im not sure youve really thought this through to its potential conclusion.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So youd vote for him as president but not as governor? I think that is somewhat short sighted, but at least it is intellectually consistent.

I don't honestly know. What gives you the impression that were he to run for Governor of some state, that he would suddenly start favoring prohibition? It this some kind of religious thing? Are you assuming that because he is a Christian Pastor, therefore he must be a prohibitionist?

Baldwin (correctly, IMHO) interprests the US Constitution to read that the control of pharmaceuticals and intoxicants is a states issue. This, by the way, is exactly how we already treat alcohol -- just ask Utah.

I saw no sentence in his reply which stated, "I'm against Federal prohibition, but I would ban them if I ran a state."

Under a Baldwin Presidency, if he got his way, recreational drugs would be moved to the same federal status as alcohol -- left up to the states.

My understanding is that he also applies that reasoning to the bill of rights as well, and supports overturning case law that applies the the bill of rights to the states. Many in the CP hold that view. Its pretty much right wing christian social conservative dogma. They dont like the first amendment seperation of church and state doctrine, and would do away with it.

OK, so it IS a religious thing. Because he is a Christian Pastor, you just automatically assume the worst. All someone has to do is breathe the word "Christian" and out comes all this venom and vitriol.

I have never seen Chuck Baldwin advocate that the individual states should have the rights to ban a given religion, that states should have the right to ban free speech, or that individual states have the right to mandate a state religion.

In fact, I'd bet the farm that he in no way advocates such lunacy. Your disgust seems to stem from a hatred of Christianty itself, and therefore you are painting all Christians (and thus Chuck Baldwin) with some broad brush of assumption wherein just because he is a Christian, therefore he wants to see every state in America force people to be baptized and take communion at the point of a gun.

What you do not see, apparently, is that such a bizarre outlook arises from your own personal distateste for Christianity, and not from Christians themselves. With very few exceptions, the Christian religion gave up trying to enforce Christianity at the point of a sword when it gave up the Crusades. Not only is such a thing counter-productive, it violates the very principles of Christianity in the first place.

Im all for states rights, and I agree that allowing the states to compete with each other for residents based on their policies is a good idea, but I also consider the bill of rights to be so fundamental as a baseline of fundamental human freedoms that to give states the ability to remove those VERY basic protections is a huge step backwards.

As I scan through the Bill of Rights, I see no "Right to use drugs" amendment. If you believe there ought to be such an amendment, then I would encourage you to work for one on the grassroots level. Your attempt to connect 'the right to comsume' in the two quote sections above with the Bill of Rights is being used as a rhetorical device. Chuck Baldwin himself makes no such connection.

I mean, what happens if SC decides tomorrow to start criminalizing twinkies, and makes that a capital offense? Are you cool with allowing a state that is part of the U.S. to execute twinky eaters? What about freedom of speech? Is it okay if tomorrow NY decides to start jailing people for saying the 'N' word? Or what about sodomy? I mean, if you take 'its okay for states to be fascist' far enough, there really isnt anything the states couldnt do if 51% of their population voted for it. Hell, up to half the population of a state could be a victim of instant ethnic or political cleansing if they dont act to move fast enough once a law is passed.

The reality here, is that you are arguing not against Chuck Baldwin's positions, but against your own prejudices. There can be no question but that the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens of the United States, thanks to DC vs Heller. Other issues, such as your ad absurdium twinkie prohibition fall under due process in standard American juris prudence. Obviously, the idea that a state would make the consumption of twinkies a capitol offense is patently absurd; but even if they COULD get the popular support to do such a thing, then American juris prudence would dictate that people have enough time to move out of such an insane state before the law took effect.

Im not sure youve really thought this through to its potential conclusion.

And I'm not sure that you are capable of discerning between Mr. Baldwins' actual positions on policy, and your own prejudices regarding Christianity.

Chuck Baldwin advocates giving recreational drugs the exact same Federal status as alcohol has today. How this translates into "right wing christian social conservative dogma" I do not quite fathom. I mean, I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind on this, as the given prejudice seems pretty well deep-seated, but to my mind, downgrading all substances on the federal level to the same status as alcohol seems more than adequate. Really, what more can we ask?

Would you rather the Federal Government point guns at Governors heads and force them to bring drugs into their states? How well do you think that would go over in Utah regarding alcohol?

 

[Knightskye]

OK, apparently Baldwin believes that any/all regulation of substances whatsoever, whether medicinal or recreational belongs at the state level, and that the Federal Gov't has no business in it whatsoever.

In the video, he still said that he believes "the federal government has a role in keeping drugs out of the country." (4:33-4:40 in the video). And then he said "drugs as well as illegal aliens." So he's not saying illegal aliens who smuggle drugs. He's talking about stopping each one.

As I scan through the Bill of Rights, I see no "Right to use drugs" amendment.

The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Who are you to say what people can or cannot smoke in the privacy of their own homes?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

In the video, he still said that he believes "the federal government has a role in keeping drugs out of the country." (4:33-4:40 in the video). And then he said "drugs as well as illegal aliens." So he's not saying illegal aliens who smuggle drugs. He's talking about stopping each one.



The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Who are you to say what people can or cannot smoke in the privacy of their own homes?

WTF are you talking about? Where have I advocated unwarranted search and seizures??? Since when did "just making crap up" become a proper debate technique?

 

[Knightskye]

WTF are you talking about? Where have I advocated unwarranted search and seizures??? Since when did "just making crap up" become a proper debate technique?

As I scan through the Bill of Rights, I see no "Right to use drugs" amendment.

Refuting your claim that there is no "right to use drugs" amendment is not "making crap up". There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs or stop them from entering the country.

Of which party is Chuck Baldwin the nominee? Oh, yeah... Constitution.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Refuting your claim that there is no "right to use drugs" amendment is not "making crap up". There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs or stop them from entering the country.

Of which party is Chuck Baldwin the nominee? Oh, yeah... Constitution.

Um. Yes, the Constitution does gove the Federal Government the power to regulate international trade -- especially to the extent of stopping smuggling.

And in order to make this easier for you, I will now post ALL 27 AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution. Perhaps you can show me which amendment guarantees the "Right To Consume"

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America


Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the several states, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution fn1

Amendment I fn2 [ Annotations ]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II [ Annotations ]

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.

Amendment III [ Annotations ]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV [ Annotations ]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V [ Annotations ]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI [ Annotations ]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII [ Annotations ]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII [ Annotations ]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX [ Annotations ]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X [ Annotations ]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XI fn3 [ Annotations ]

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Amendment XII fn4 [ Annotations ]

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice- President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice- President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President--The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment XIII. fn5 [ Annotations ]

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV. fn6 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV. fn7 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI. fn8 [ Annotations ]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment XVII fn9 [ Annotations ]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment XVIII fn10 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Sec. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Sec. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment XIX fn11 [ Annotations ]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XX fn12 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Sec. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Sec. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Sec. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Sec. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Sec. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment XXI fn13 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Sec. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Sec. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment XXII fn14 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Sec. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Amendment XXIII fn15 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV fn16 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXV fn17 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section. 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section. 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives has written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives has written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI fn18 [ Annotations ]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVII fn19 [ Annotations ]

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


This document is sponsored by the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office web site.

The point was, that Kalifornia was equating a "Right to use Recreational Drugs" with the "Right to Free Speech" and from a Constitutional standpoint, there is no such equivalency.

I do believe, as I have said, SEVERAL times, that the freedom to do such a thing should be considered a fundamental principle.

But nevertheless, there is no such amendment either in the Bill of Rights, or in ANY of the Amendments to the US Constitution.

There is a BIG difference between "There is nothing in the Constitution saying that..." and "The First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Speech."

If there really is NOTHING in the Constitution, then by Constitutional law, it is a STATES ISSUE. However, if it is contained int he Bill of Rights, then the states hve no right to prohibit it.

Likewise, there is no amendment in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the consumptioon of ALCOHOL, and therefore Utah has prohibited Alcohol.

As far as basic reading comprehension goes, you fail.

 

[Knightskye]

Um. Yes, the Constitution does give the Federal Government the power to regulate international trade -- especially to the extent of stopping smuggling.

The Constitution gives Congress this authority:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

They don't have the right to regulate people. People legally going back and forth across the border carrying drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) are only "smugglers" in the eyes of the state they enter from Mexico, not the federal government.

If there really is NOTHING in the Constitution, then by Constitutional law, it is a STATES ISSUE. However, if it is contained in the Bill of Rights, then the states hve no right to prohibit it.

Likewise, there is no amendment in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the consumption of ALCOHOL, and therefore Utah has prohibited Alcohol.

Citizens have the right to challenge unconstitutional legislation in court.

I'm going to say this again, the 4th Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. How are people supposed to be secure in their house if the state makes anything they might be able to do in their house, illegal? As well as their persons?

As far as basic reading comprehension goes, you fail.

No need for insults. I haven't criticized your spelling skills.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution gives Congress this authority:


They don't have the right to regulate people. People legally going back and forth across the border carrying drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) are only "smugglers" in the eyes of the state they enter from Mexico, not the federal government.



Citizens have the right to challenge unconstitutional legislation in court.

I'm going to say this again, the 4th Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. How are people supposed to be secure in their house if the state makes anything they might be able to do in their house, illegal? As well as their persons?



No need for insults. I haven't criticized your spelling skills.

Let my try this very slowly...

A S K - U T A H - A B O U T - A L C O H O L - P R O H I B I T I O N

The people of Utah, by a vast majority, want to live in a state without alcohol. who the hell are YOU to stick a gun in their face and demand that they accept it?

 

[Kalifornia]

Let my try this very slowly...

A S K - U T A H - A B O U T - A L C O H O L - P R O H I B I T I O N

The people of Utah, by a vast majority, want to live in a state without alcohol. who the hell are YOU to stick a gun in their face and demand that they accept it?

I don't have time to argue this with you. Just wanted to say your ad hominem, straw man and mischaracterization tactics on this thread has made me lose a lot of repect for you personally. Peace.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't have time to argue this with you. Just wanted to say your ad hominem, straw man and mischaracterization tactics on this thread has made me lose a lot of repect for you personally. Peace.

Um. I'm not the one who would hold a gun on Utah citizens and force them to accept alcohol against their will. I couldn't care less about people's "respect" only truth and right. If I lose your respect on account of standing up for right then that's respect that I didn't want in the first place.

 

[Kalifornia]

Um. I'm not the one who would hold a gun on Utah citizens and force them to accept alcohol against their will. I couldn't care less about people's "respect" only truth and right. If I lose your respect on account of standing up for right then that's respect that I didn't want in the first place.

You've lost my respect not by your position but by your behavior. You managed to turn a repectful debate about baldwin's and the CP's platform into a personal attack fest.

If you are really interested in "truth", maybe you should take a chill pill and reread my earlier post without going rabid.

Im a christian, btw. We aren't perfect. I find your dual support for a lack of personal liberty at the state level with your professed love for the spirit of 'constitutioanl Minarchism' to be intellectually inconsistent. Maybe when I have an hour to outline further, I will. Until then Id love it if you just chill the fuck out and quit slinging mud. It makes you look like a douche. or even worse, a fundy like theocrat.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not the one who started accusing people of wanting to take away folk's 4th amendment rights. I'm not the one who started calling people 'short sighted' and getting all snark-y about religion. I'm not the one who blew off on a completely irrelevant tangent accusing others of being against the Bill of Rights.

Don't you talk to me like I was the one who escalated this to nastiness. Look in the frelling mirror sometime. I don't give a damn if you respect me, nor for whatever reasons you choose to give, nor for whatever spin you choose to put on your verbal diarrhea.

You two started getting nasty, and now that I've systematically demonstrated that your arguments are without foundation you want to bitch about how mean I am. Well STFU! You want to cry? Cry somewhere else. You started it, and now you are going to cry because the kitchen got too hot for you. I have no sympathy for such drivel.

 

[familydog]

I'm going to say this again, the 4th Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. How are people supposed to be secure in their house if the state makes anything they might be able to do in their house, illegal? As well as their persons?

You seem to be confused. The 4th Amendment only protects the right of citizens not to have arbitrary and warrantless searches and seizures on their property by law enforcement. There is no general "right to privacy" in the 4th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. The Supreme Court hijaked the meaning of the 4th Amendment in the Griswold v. Connecticut case. They said that there isn't an explicit right to privacy, but a state banning birth control violates a right that is hinted in the Constitution. So even the Supreme Court recognizes that there is no inherent right to privacy in the Constitution, even though their conclusion about hinted rights was wrong and itself unconstitutional. So a state can ban whatever substance they see fit.

Ron Paul recognizes this as well.
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

 

[Truth Warrior]

Chuck Balwin to stem the flow of illegal drugs.video

That would REALLY piss off both the CIA AND DEA.<IMHO>

 

[Kalifornia]

I'm not the one who started accusing people of wanting to take away folk's 4th amendment rights. I'm not the one who started calling people 'short sighted' and getting all snark-y about religion. I'm not the one who blew off on a completely irrelevant tangent accusing others of being against the Bill of Rights.

Don't you talk to me like I was the one who escalated this to nastiness. Look in the frelling mirror sometime. I don't give a damn if you respect me, nor for whatever reasons you choose to give, nor for whatever spin you choose to put on your verbal diarrhea.

You two started getting nasty, and now that I've systematically demonstrated that your arguments are without foundation you want to bitch about how mean I am. Well STFU! You want to cry? Cry somewhere else. You started it, and now you are going to cry because the kitchen got too hot for you. I have no sympathy for such drivel.

Seriously Gunny, what happened to you? . You used to be pretty cool. Now youre just being a dick. Whats the matter, no one ever disagreed with you civilly before and you dont know how to deal with it? For the record, I criticized YOUR POSITION, not you. I guess you cant figure out the difference.

At this point, you have become a waste of my time. bu-bye.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Seriously Gunny, what happened to you? . You used to be pretty cool. Now youre just being a dick. Whats the matter, no one ever disagreed with you civilly before and you dont know how to deal with it? For the record, I criticized YOUR POSITION, not you. I guess you cant figure out the difference.

At this point, you have become a waste of my time. bu-bye.

nor can you see past your own nose. I consider being accused of opposing the Bill of Rights a higher insult than disparaging my family. In my physical presence, people get their noses broken for saying such garbage to me. There is a big difference between critically disagreeing with my position, and accusing me of something that is so obviously untrue simply in an effort to win rhetorical points in an argument.

You think I'm a dick via keyboard? Try that crap to my face! My short sighted bill of rights hating self will break your frelling jaw. ESPECIALLY when you say such crap in an effort to propagandize your argument.

But go on buddy. Act like your feces don't stink. You can claim the victim. I ain't buying it!