hugo

Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place. The vast majority of Pakistanians do not want our army on their soil.. Even a dictator must give some credence to the wishes of his citizens.

I am sorry. The national highway system can be rationally rendered Constitutional through the designated power to build and maintain post roads. Prohibition of drugs cannot be without a gross misinterpretation of the commerce or general welfare clauses. That is why an amendment was required in an era where our constitution was respected. Many households are currently supporting drug addicts of legal and illegal substitutes. The taxes applied to drugs should not be excessive. It would be quite stupid to tax a drug to the point you recreate the same black market you legalized drugs to end. Heroin and cocaine are both quite cheap to grow. It is only the costs imposed by government that makes them expensive. Heroin is not a drug that incrreases aggression. Addicts rob to pay for the high price of drugs caused by our lost drug war. Most crime has something to do with drugs because A: We stupidly make drug possession a crime and B: We artificially raise the prices of drugs requiring users to resort to crimes against persons and property.

The US Air Force split off from the army. There were hot air ballons used for military purposes in colonial times..

We are getting off subject, most of those imprisoned for drug laws are imprisoned by the state. Article I Section 8 does include the building of post roads which can reasonably apply to our highway system. The short answer to your question is, yes, we should return to being a republic . Yes, the 9th and 10th Amendments should mean something. Yes, most gpvernment should be local. Yes, the federal government should be limited to the powersdesignated in Article I Section 8 and the Amendments. What made our nation great was the concept of individual liberty derived from natural law. The free market adequately punishes those who abuse their liberty.

Wow, I suggest you read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution you will find that the powers of the federal government exceed just defending the nation. The federal government has also been designated additional powers by subsequent amendments. None of those amendments gave the federal government authority to wage the current drug war. It should be a state issue. Let me make it easy for you. Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The powers of the federal government are clearly enunciated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. A few quotes: "[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14 "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45 "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792 Note the reference to "General Welfare." Please do not confuse this with "social welfare" as we know it today, or public charity. The two are distinctly different as will be addressed later in detail "The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791 "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 There we have it! Proof that both the Father of the Constitution and unquestionably our nation's foremost expert on the Constitution, James Madison, AND the Father of American Independence, Thomas Jefferson, specifically acknowledging Congressional powers to be strictly limited and defined - quite a long shot from today! One distinction must be noted though. Jefferson and Madison were by no means representative of the opinions of all the framers. They were both strict constitutionalists representative of those very fearful of the strength of the new government. For that reason I turn to the other side most represented in Alexander Hamilton - one that believed in a looser interpretation. "This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83 How about this quote:

Yes, it has been tried. The originalist arguments have been rejected by the USSC since the FDR era. Our Constitution is no longer worth the paper it is printed on.

Excuse me, I am not complaining about any of the amendments. That was the way the founding fathers left open to allow for change. There has been no amendment providing the federal government power to fight the drug war, The drug war, just like SS, is blatantly unconstitutional at the federal level. Actually, the fouding fathers were very aware of the threat of mob rule. That is why they required amendments to increase federal power that required large majorities. The founding fathers were very aware of men's selfish desires. Much more aware than we are today, There are no Jefferso's, Madisons or Washingtons today.

You are the one that named the ACLU. Now, name me the organization that supports the Constitution from the originalist point of view and explain to me how they can get through Justice Kennedy and the four commies and return our constitution to the place it was at pre-FDR? The fact is , junior, activist judges have rendered our constitution null and void. Our constitution was not friendly to socialism.

O0H, my in' God. Like you believe the ACLU stands for the Constitution. Let me explain something, junior, the ACLU was founded by a former president of the American Communist Party. They don't give a damn about the constitution. No, back in the 30's the Constitution was disgraced. It has got worse ever since. 90% of the crap congress does today is unconstitututional by any rational reading of our once great constitution. A quote from the "Father of the Constitution" "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison

Yep, I sure did. Try reading Federalist Paper #41.

Stop being a in' moron. An amendment was required because we did not have the current BS interstate commerce interpretation. The federal government, before FDR, had it's powers limitated to the powers enunciated in Article1Section 8 of the Constitution. Our Constitution limited the power of the federal government. Federal laws against drugs are unconstitutional under any any rational reading of the Constitution.

Pot smokers are not the ones that are robbing and killing people. the people doing that are the hard drug users. Legalizing pot will not do for society. Legalizing crack and heroin will. Let me quote the greatest man of the 20th century again: Now, let us ask a constitutional question--- If it required amendments to ban and unban alcohol use, how are federal laws against drugs constitutional? No one will answer this question.

The history of the prohibition era would argue otherwise. Of course, that was before the tax environment we live in today. Here though, once again, the argument is that terrible government causes the need for more government. The tax level should be equivalent to the taxes imposed on alcohol.

What you are basically stating is terrible government policies require more government to correct. The high prices of prescription drugs in the United States is largely due to the exorbitant costs imposed by the FDA on drug manufacturers. The Kefauver Amendment passed in 1962 is the primary cause of high drug costs. Repeal the Kefauver Amendment and prescription costs will drop dramaticaaly. I don't see recreational drugs as being subjected to the proof of effectiveness trials that drugs for treatment of illnesses are. I agree there is too much government. I'm trying to reduce government. I have to disagree. Alcohol has been the most popular drug of choice for most cultures fhroughout history. I don't recall my grandfather recalling the cocaine parties of his youth, when coke was in cola. My standards are the classical liberal standards of Jefferson and Madison where insuring individual liberty (at least for white guys) was the primary function of government. The surge in out of wedlock births began when government started paying women who had kids out of wedlock. Ronald Reagan was right when he said that "Government is not the solution. It is the problem." He should have extended that to social issues as well as economic ones.

The drugs are expensive because they are illegal.

One exception, I would prohibit all advertising.

What you also have to take into account is the misery caused by the black market. Whole urban neighborhoods are being destroyed by the illegalization of drugs. Urban gangs are largely financed by drug sales. Whole countries (i.e. Columbia) are in turmoil. Al-Queda and the Taliban are partially financed by illegal drug revenues. Our prisons and law officers are overburdened. We cannot put enough sources preventing rapes, robberies and homicides. Homicides and robberies are increased due to the black market in a good that there is a demand for. The terminally stupid will always be with us. The free market will adequately punish them without government assistance. When I refer to legalization I refer to placing all recreational drugs in the same position the manufacture and sales of alcohol is now in. It sounds like neither you or your friends will engage in meth use upon drug legalization, nor would I go back to smoking weed.

That blonde gal has the startled look down pact. She should be nominated for best actress in a suppossedly non-fiction show.

The facts is legalization of all drugs, as jhony as pointed out, would actually make it more difficult for adolescents to obtain drugs, I cannot see a huge increase in adults deciding to start using heroin or coke just because it is legal. From the Friedman article I posted earlier

The case will soon be solved the psychics from Haunting Evidence are now on the case.

There are other mediums of exchange. Gold and silver come to mind. A drug addict will get his fix.

I'll give the short answer for now...it is because socialism trumps civil liberties.

It is no more biased than commiepedia.com

Exactly, and you still got heroin and coke addicts stealing, robbing and killing for a fix. Legalize all drugs, without a prescription, for anyone over 21. The price will be so cheap no one will need to steal for a fix. I am tired of the stoner fascists arguing all recreational drugs should be illegal except for their so-called miracle drug.