Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62

Thread: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

  1. #51
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    The Bill of Rights does apply to the States so on the face of it the 9th Amendment may well confer a right to take any substance one chooses to.
    That is too black and white of an answer, so let me respond. Heroin kills, so under the Commerce Clause, the Federal government has every right to bust him and have him tried. If he is convicted, the Federal government also has the right to put him in prison. The states also have those rights, if they feel that heroin is a public danger. Manufacturing heroin is not a right.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #52
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    That is too black and white of an answer, so let me respond. Heroin kills, so under the Commerce Clause, the Federal government has every right to bust him and have him tried. If he is convicted, the Federal government also has the right to put him in prison. The states also have those rights, if they feel that heroin is a public danger. Manufacturing heroin is not a right.
    The Commerce Clause cannot be applied to purely intra-state transactions. Yes I know in reality that's not how it works today but as t-dude noted the Commerce Clause has been stretched to the point of unrecognizability.

    So from where does the Federal government get its regulatory power over intra-state heroin manufacture and distribution?

    And I thought you agreed with this point a page ago? I was merely pointing out that since the states must respect the 9th and 10th they could form the basis of a legal right to take any drug one chooses to.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #53
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    No, you include things you want, that no one who wrote the document ever dreamed of.
    Horrifying, doomsday-causing things like same-sex marriage! The horror. George Washington must be rolling in his grave.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #54
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Horrifying, doomsday-causing things like same-sex marriage! The horror. George Washington must be rolling in his grave.
    The Constitution is quiet on that.
    "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)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #55
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Maybe this will help: The People have the right to do ANYTHING THEY WANT unless it's prohibited by Constitutionally-compliant laws.
    I'm with you, so far. If there isn't a law prohibiting an action, then you have a right to engage in that action, or at least to do so without government trying to punish you for doing so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    It's as simple as that. Just because a right is "explicitly-enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean other rights which are not enumerated don't exist. That's what the 9th Amendment clearly and plainly says.
    I think this is where we differ. At least where certain actions (such as abusing drugs) are concerned, you seem to see the Ninth Amendment as a sort of a blank check. You claim a “right” to abuse drugs, and you claim that the Ninth Amendment protects this “right”, to the same degree that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. I simply do not see how you can logically claim this, without opening the door for any action—no matter how much harm it causes, and how little benefit—to equally be claimed as a “right”.

    I simply don't see the Ninth Amendment as the same kind of “blank check” for claiming “rights” as you do. What I see it as doing is shifting the burden to government, that if government is going to enact a law prohibiting an action, then government, needs to be able to make the case that the action in question is sufficiently harmful to justify that prohibition, and that that action is therefore not a right; rather than on the individual to prove that he ha a right to do something before he is allowed to do it.

    In the case of drug abuse, I think this is an activity that is clearly proven to be harmful, both to the individual who engages in it, and to society as a whole; while providing no benefit to offset the harm that it causes. The case for prohibiting it is already made. The burden has been met to justify laws against it. I do agree with you, that because the Constitution nowhere delegates any authority regarding drug abuse to the federal government, that all federal laws addressing the subject violate the Tenth Amendment. But the states fully have the authority to enact and enforce Constitutionally-compliant laws against drug abuse.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    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.

  6. #56
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    I think this is where we differ. At least where certain actions (such as abusing drugs) are concerned, you seem to see the Ninth Amendment as a sort of a blank check. You claim a “right” to abuse drugs, and you claim that the Ninth Amendment protects this “right”, to the same degree that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. I simply do not see how you can logically claim this, without opening the door for any action—no matter how much harm it causes, and how little benefit—to equally be claimed as a “right”.

    I simply don't see the Ninth Amendment as the same kind of “blank check” for claiming “rights” as you do. What I see it as doing is shifting the burden to government, that if government is going to enact a law prohibiting an action, then government, needs to be able to make the case that the action in question is sufficiently harmful to justify that prohibition, and that that action is therefore not a right; rather than on the individual to prove that he ha a right to do something before he is allowed to do it.

    In the case of drug abuse, I think this is an activity that is clearly proven to be harmful, both to the individual who engages in it, and to society as a whole; while providing no benefit to offset the harm that it causes. The case for prohibiting it is already made. The burden has been met to justify laws against it. I do agree with you, that because the Constitution nowhere delegates any authority regarding drug abuse to the federal government, that all federal laws addressing the subject violate the Tenth Amendment. But the states fully have the authority to enact and enforce Constitutionally-compliant laws against drug abuse.
    Dude, we are saying the same thing. If you think we differ, please re-read my posts. I've said at least a couple times that the States have Constitutional authority to prohibit drugs but not the Fed. See post #27 in particular:

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    That is correct. I think the prohibition of drugs is just bad policy on its face, but the States would be within their Constitutional authority to implement such laws. The Fed, however, is way out of its jurisdiction with its current set of drug laws (which probably include many if the pharmacy laws you mentioned).

  7. #57
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Heroin kills, so under the Commerce Clause, the Federal government has every right to bust him and have him tried. If he is convicted, the Federal government also has the right to put him in prison. The states also have those rights, if they feel that heroin is a public danger.
    If I make my own heroin and shoot up in my own house, that has exactly ****-all to do with COMMERCE. Inter-state or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Manufacturing heroin is not a right.
    Why not? Do you think hang gliding is also not a right? Your definition of what is and is not a right seems arbitrary to me. All based on the fact that it kills, and nothing else??

  8. #58
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    If I make my own heroin and shoot up in my own house, that has exactly ****-all to do with COMMERCE. Inter-state or not.


    Why not? Do you think hang gliding is also not a right? Your definition of what is and is not a right seems arbitrary to me. All based on the fact that it kills, and nothing else??
    Because at some time you go out into the public. And heroin is first grown, then processed. Not really a home DIY sort of thing.

  9. #59
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Because at some time you go out into the public.
    1. That still has nothing at all to do with COMMERCE.
    2. So what?? (Allow me to preempt your answer: If I'm driving around high on heroin, bust me for that. If I steal your property to get my next fix, bust me for that. But if I watch TV for the next 8 hours? Mind your own damn business!)

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    And heroin is first grown, then processed. Not really a home DIY sort of thing.
    That has nothing to do with the point. I'm referring to a bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause that some people believe gives the federal government authority to ban substances even when they have nothing to do with COMMERCE.

  10. #60
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Dude, we are saying the same thing. If you think we differ, please re-read my posts. I've said at least a couple times that the States have Constitutional authority to prohibit drugs but not the Fed. See post #27 in particular:
    Am I getting confused, now, or was it you, some ways back in this thread, who stated that it was hypocritical to support the right to keep and bear arms, but to oppose the “right” to abuse drugs? That's the argument that I think I am having with you—that I do not accept the “right” to abuse drugs as being in any way comparable to the right to keep and bear arms; and therefore find no hypocrisy or inconsistency in supporting the right to keep and bear arms, while opposing the “right” to abuse drugs.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    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.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •