As an originalist I oppose federal judicial interference in the right of the states to regulate firearms.
There is no right spelled out in the Constitution to abuse harmful drugs. There is no compelling social benefit to allowing such abuse. There is a great interest that society has in preventing such abuse, as much as reasonably possible.
There is no valid comparison here, between the right to keep and bear arms, and the “right” that you want to assert to abuse drugs.
I do agree with you that the federal government has no authority to regulate drug abuse, that this belongs to the states.
But there is no inconsistency in defending an explicit Constitutional right that strengthens those who exercise it, and strengthens society as a whole; while denying a “right” which is found nowhere in the Constitution, and the exercise of which is only harmful to those who exercise it, and to society as a whole.
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.
CT is the biggest 2A supporter on the court
Not with the dozen or more Democratic senators who take turns it seems to help filibuster laws like Toomey/Manchin.
Right off the top, Baucus/Walsh, Heitkamp, Landrieu, Gillibrand,
PRYOR, Hagan, Begich, HARRY REID and Manchin come to mind as strong gun folks.
Several of them sustained the filibuster on T/M.
9 + 45 would be 54 Senators sustaining any filibuster.
Except RINOs like Kirk from my state are squishy, like Toomey on Toomey/Manchin.
Anyway, this Roberts Court is light years ahead of the Rehnquist politicizers, Sandra Day O'Connor now recants .
Chemists Have Solutions .
The Constitution doesn't limit the RIGHTS of Citizens, it limits the Federal Government primarily and the States is some part. Several Founders thought listing a few basic ones would have yahoos in later years claiming they were the only Rights Citizens have. It seems to be an attempt to limit a Citizens Rights in areas the CONs don't endorse to try and claim if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution it doesn't exist.
Next the 10th Amendment was a stroke of genius, the Founders knew times would change and a way to acknowledge this was needed.
Under the 10th A there should never be a need to create an amendment to ACKNOWLEDGE Citizen Rights, such as women voting, slaves as citizens, gays as equal in marriage and the law, but rather anything that limits Citizen Rights, such as Prohibition, MUST be an amendment.
But just because the Constitution doesn't list each and every Right a Citizen holds doesn't mean the Right doesn't exist.
Just my take on the War on Drugs- it is UnConstitutional. Equal treatment under the law. Cigarettes and alcohol are regulated, their use all by itself is not a crime. Cause harm while under the influence of alcohol and there are penalties. Alcohol is addictive, cigarettes are addictive, both cause bodily harm with even moderate use.
Drugs should be regulated and penalties by the Government should focus on actions that harm while under the influence.
If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg....