• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the U.S. Drug War unConstitutional?

sear

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
925
Reaction score
122
Location
Adirondack Park, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.
ARTICLE 3. SECTION 3.
1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War Against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Click to expand...
a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
 
36280c9567df34780f33286ecfdae1bc0874eaf22dfa5dbdef092feeaba8144a.jpg
 
A law doesn't have to be unconstitutional in order for it to be wrong.
 
36280c9567df34780f33286ecfdae1bc0874eaf22dfa5dbdef092feeaba8144a.jpg

You think I could joke about what remains among the top 3 human rights catastrophes in the entire history of the United States of America?

1) There's slavery.

2) There's Drug War.

What's the 3rd? Beefaroni ?!

The main thing other more universally acknowledged Wars have over Drug War is strafing.

In WWII we took prisoners.
In Drug War the U.S. has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the Western world.
Savor the irony! The nation we memorialize in song as "the land of the free, and the home of the brave" has more prisoners in proportion to population than any of the others in our group.

War is plunder, to the victor go the spoils.
Are you not familiar with the plunder government gets from U.S. citizens?
In Drug War, they'll take $cash straight out of your wallet.
And when YOU are charged, THEY have to prove guilt.
When they steal your $cash, YOU have to prove yourself innocent before you get it back; and may not get it back even then.

36280c9567df34780f33286ecfdae1bc0874eaf22dfa5dbdef092feeaba8144a.jpg

- seriously -

SERIOUSLY ?!?!?!

Serve a few years in the U.S. military.
THEN ask me whether I'm serious about the Creator endowed, Constitutionally enumerated, unalienable right of Liberty.
 
Unethical? Yes. Unconstitutional? Depends. If the drugs are produced, sold, and consumed within a state or between states that agree to it, then I think the Federal government has no business getting involved. The Federal government's involvement should be limited to stopping it at the border and handling interstate trafficking. Or perhaps providing assistance when a state asks.

The above is my personal interpretation of the Constitution. Obviously the courts disagree.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?
Click to expand...

No, the basis for banning drugs can be found in a number of different places most notably the commerce clause. It was also enacted in part to comply with various treaties that the united states made.

sear said:
what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

They should go **** themselves. That's the only thing the Trump administration could realistically ever do that would be in the best interest of Country.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

This isn't a solution. If we could resolve the WoD with a dusty legal technicality, it never would have gotten off the ground in the first place. Histrionics aren't helping, either.

You address the main reasons it endures in post #5. The WoD is a profit center for law enforcement. Find a solution to that, and you'll be onto something.
 
Thank you SB #6.
Please forgive me for saying so, but your avatar looks to me like Dr. Carl Sagan with a cannabis background.
"If the drugs are produced, sold, and consumed within a state or between states that agree to it, then I think the Federal government has no business getting involved." SB #6
Click to expand...
That's an interesting point.

Reductio ad absurdum:
Let's consider the simplest case:
hemp that grows naturally on acreage you own, whether cultivated or not.
“Well article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Beginning in the 1930's progressives used the commerce clause to claim that the government could do virtually anything it wished. It culminated in ... [the court case] Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, Mr. Filburn had grown a few hundred bushels of wheat over his allotment in FDR's disasterous price fixing scheme. The wheat was entirely for Filburn's own consumption but the Supreme Court held that Filburn's fines were Constitutional because the wheat he grew for himself would otherwise have to be procured off of the open market and that affected interstate commerce.
After that there were practically no limits to the scope of government power.” Cincinnatus87
Click to expand...
Please do not infer more than I imply.

I'm NOT validating Wickard v. Filburn.
But I can't deny it's the law of the land.

SCOTUS has dialed itself back before.
Should it in this case? Almost certainly, in my layman's opinion.
But don't hold your breath.

Author Peter MacWilliams made a sensible point about it in Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.

MacWilliams observes the Holy Bible accords us "dominion" over herbs.
Hemp, cannabis sativa, etc are herbs.
Therefore by enumerated First Amendment right alone, we have a RELIGIOUS right to cultivate these crops.

BUT !!

In reality, the government we Founded in the 18th century to be our benevolent servant has in
the 21st century become our punitive master.
 
PS


"They should go **** themselves." MW #7
Click to expand...
You bring the ball-gag. I'll bring the handcuffs.
" If we could resolve the WoD with a dusty legal technicality, it never would have gotten off the ground in the first place. "
Click to expand...
I grudgingly revere the tenured wisdom this informed comment reflects.

BUT !!

I'm still enough of a cockeyed optimist to believe in silver bullets.

AND !!

Every once in a while ...
Can you say: "Rosa Parks"?

Yes. I knew you could!
 
Spartacus FPV said:
A law doesn't have to be unconstitutional in order for it to be wrong.
Click to expand...

How much time and how much money do you have to waste before you realize that an idea/policy is just...plain...dumb. Then, there's the unnecessary deaths.

The "war" was not declared as such, but I believe that it directly violates the 4th and other amendments. The banners should have had to do what the supporters of prohibition did. The policy would fail, but that would be the correct way to try it.
 
"How much time and how much money do you have to waste before you realize that an idea/policy is just...plain...dumb." P #12
Click to expand...
This is a vitally important point, even if obliquely stated.

I'm not sure Drug Warriors insist their War of Martial Oppression isn't "dumb".

BUT !!

The prison industrial complex doesn't care about smart. "Follow the $money." Mark Felt, aka "deep throat" / Woodward - Bernstein & Watergate

"The "war" was not declared as such, but I believe that it directly violates the 4th and other amendments. The banners should have had to do what the supporters of prohibition did. The policy would fail, but that would be the correct way to try it." P #12

P #12 for President !
 
Porkuloss said:
How much time and how much money do you have to waste before you realize that an idea/policy is just...plain...dumb. Then, there's the unnecessary deaths.

The "war" was not declared as such, but I believe that it directly violates the 4th and other amendments. The banners should have had to do what the supporters of prohibition did. The policy would fail, but that would be the correct way to try it.
Click to expand...

Why do you pose this question to me, who is opposed to the war on drugs?
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Why do you pose this question to me, who is opposed to the war on drugs?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I know your stance on this issue. I was piggybacking on your post. "you" in that sentence was a rhetorical stab at the government. I should have realized it came off the way you took it.
 
You kids strike me as extraordinarily sensible.

Please don't think I'm haranguing you.

But am I out of line thinking this is an issue deserving a sanity check?
"... a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, .... Time makes more converts than reason." Thomas Paine / Common Sense
Click to expand...
Drug War has been munching along in one form or another for as long as my 62+ years can recall.

What are we doing?!

So many adversities we fact will be expensive to address.
We nibble away at cancer. But we'll spend $Trillions on it before we're through.
ISIL, the Taliban, & al Qaida, all expensive propositions.

But Drug War is a problem we can SOLVE with the stroke of a pen, and save $Hundreds of Billions the first decade.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

You don't wage war on a "thing" or an "item". You wage war on another nation.

Obviously "war on drugs" is just a catchy phrase.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

There is no enumerated power in the Constitution giving the federal government the power to enforce drug prohibition. Therefore the 10 amendment applies, making it a state issue. Further, we have precedent on how to grant the federal government the power to prohibit a substance and that is via a constitutional amendment, as demonstrated in the 18th amendment. We then had to pass another amendment (the 21st) to repeal that power.

So, the answer is partially "yes". It's unconstitutional to do such on the federal level. The states can have at it, but that doesn't mean they should, just that they can.
 
"You don't wage war on a "thing" or an "item". You wage war on another nation.
Obviously "war on drugs" is just a catchy phrase." cc #17
Click to expand...
That is a point I've made explicitly countless times:

"It's not a War on Drugs, it's a War against U.S. citizens." sear

BUT !!

LBJ's "War on Poverty" wasn't waged by gun-toting paramilitary troops, taking prisoners, taking plunder, and usurping the very right U.S. government was Founded to protect.
LBJ's "War on Poverty" was waged by expanding availability of food, and education, etc.

BUT !!

The War against Americans is a real, martial War. It is most certainly NOT a "War" in name alone, unlike the "War on Poverty".
" It's unconstitutional to do such on the federal level. The states can have at it, but that doesn't mean they should, just that they can. " F #18
Click to expand...
I'm quite confident that's false.

There's no denying there are rivalries and contentions between State and federal governments. That's fine.

BUT !!

The U.S. Founders did not found a nation where the U.S. federal government could not impose martial oppression, but if the States wanted to, they could.

The proof of this is Art.6 Sect.2:
ARTICLE 6. Sect. 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
I consider that unambiguously clear.

It doesn't mean our federal government CAN legally wage its War of martial oppression against the People.
What it instead means is that neither the U.S. federal government, nor any other form (State, regional, county, or municipal) can.
Martial oppression is illegal in the United States of America, PERIOD.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

The drug prohibition, as defined by the Harrison Act of 1914 and the CSA from the 70's, is unconstitutional, but not because of Article III Section 3. Nixon coined the phrase War On Drugs, but that is simply meant for public consumption and sloganeering, nothing more.

It is unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted the power to tell the citizens what they may or may not ingest into their bodies. Both statutes, Harrison and CSA fail constitutional muster, and much damage has been done to the Constitution and the rule of law and constitutional governance by those acts.

Trump is going to keep on keeping on, as his nitwit Sessions has noted.
 
"The drug prohibition, as defined by the Harrison Act of 1914 and the CSA from the 70's, is unconstitutional, but not because of Article III Section 3." T7 #20
Click to expand...
Please forgive me for splitting hares here.

Do you mean to suggest DW is unConstitutional for a reason independent of Art.3 Sect.3?

Or are you suggesting DW does not in any way violate Art.3 Sect.3?

There are TWO definitions of treason in Art.3 Sect.3.

The waging War against the People one would seem rather obvious. The second definition, "aid & comfort", is according to Nobel Laureate economist Dr. Milton Friedman, DW also violates that second definition. Some reports indicate the most wealthy entrepreneur in the United States during Prohibition was Al (scar face) Capone. But he'd have been a two bit street thug stealing hub caps for lunch money if it weren't for Prohibition, which enriched him beyond imagining.
Similar story with Pablo Escobar, the Auriano Felix brothers, and all the rest.
"Nixon coined the phrase War On Drugs, but that is simply meant for public consumption and sloganeering, nothing more." T7 #20
Click to expand...
Splendid.
No contest.

BUT !!

"A rose by any other name ..." Bill Shakespeare

I couldn't care less what you call it. Call it Gertrude if you like. Whatever you call it, IT IS WAR !!
"It is unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted the power to tell the citizens what they may or may not ingest into their bodies." T7
Click to expand...
There are enumerated authorities, and there are enumerated rights.
There are unenumerated authorities, and there are unenumerated rights.

- enumerated authority:
ARTICLE 1. SECTION 8.
1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [Defense] and general Welfare ...

- enumerated right:
2A

- unenumerated authority:
FCC

- unenumerated right:
Respiration. There is no ENUMERATED Constitutional right to breathe. But most of us do so anyway.

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen
"Both statutes, Harrison and CSA fail constitutional muster, and much damage has been done to the Constitution and the rule of law and constitutional governance by those acts."
Click to expand...
Which pales in comparison to the human rights catastrophe it has inflicted upon the very People it was Founded to protect.
 
sear said:
Please forgive me for splitting hares here.

Do you mean to suggest DW is unConstitutional for a reason independent of Art.3 Sect.3?

Or are you suggesting DW does not in any way violate Art.3 Sect.3?

There are TWO definitions of treason in Art.3 Sect.3.

The waging War against the People one would seem rather obvious. The second definition, "aid & comfort", is according to Nobel Laureate economist Dr. Milton Friedman, DW also violates that second definition. Some reports indicate the most wealthy entrepreneur in the United States during Prohibition was Al (scar face) Capone. But he'd have been a two bit street thug stealing hub caps for lunch money if it weren't for Prohibition, which enriched him beyond imagining.
Similar story with Pablo Escobar, the Auriano Felix brothers, and all the rest.

Splendid.
No contest.

BUT !!

"A rose by any other name ..." Bill Shakespeare

I couldn't care less what you call it. Call it Gertrude if you like. Whatever you call it, IT IS WAR !!

There are enumerated authorities, and there are enumerated rights.
There are unenumerated authorities, and there are unenumerated rights.

- enumerated authority:
ARTICLE 1. SECTION 8.
1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [Defense] and general Welfare ...

- enumerated right:
2A

- unenumerated authority:
FCC

- unenumerated right:
Respiration. There is no ENUMERATED Constitutional right to breathe. But most of us do so anyway.

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen

Which pales in comparison to the human rights catastrophe it has inflicted upon the very People it was Founded to protect.
Click to expand...

I had not noticed any hares here, but if you mean splitting hairs, I guess you're close to being right. ;)

Yes to your first question, and maybe on your second. The Article 3 angle I had not considered before, but you do have a point. We are both into theory here, because constitutional governance is very much a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all. The drug prohibition is illegitimate and very harmful to the people, but it is good for the growth of the state and its many bureaucracies, so that prevails. The pragmatic view, eh?

Instead of the word "authority", I prefer the word "power" as is used in the document. We the people have rights, more than can be enumerated.

The government has powers, enumerated in the document.

The power (authority) to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest IS NOT an enumerated or implied power.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

There is no conceivable way that I can see that the drug war violated Art 3. Sec 3. No one is levying war against the United States - it comes under the police powers that the executive branch has nor is any enemies that I can see being given aid and comfort. If you want to argue that the exercise of the executive's police powers in this case is unconstitutional that's a different argument and one we can have. But this is very clearly not an Art. 3 matter.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

No. Why do you think drug laws have anything to do with aiding and abetting the nations enemies?

You may have an argument regarding drug laws. This ain't it.
 
sear said:
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?
Click to expand...

BTW, Treason is not the only crime defined. There's also piracy and counterfeiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom