beausox Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 Would it not be better for the strict constructionists be crusty old historians? This debate is as old as the Constitution - this is not a new argument made up by Delay. JEfferson believed in a living constitution that would be rewitten be each generation. Others of the time believed as did Scalia. I believe that the "strict constructionist" point of view is contrary to common sense. Society and culture changes over time - that is simply a natural state of affairs. It is simply delusional to believe that we can maintain a single interpretation - i.e, the founders' intent - for over 200 years. Also social circumstances change. For example, how can the view of the founders' be used to interpret how property law or copyright law applies to the internet? Also, strict constructionists would tell you that you do not have a guaranteed right to privacy because it was not an enumumerated right. To me, as it did Douglas, that flies in the face of logic. 352365[/snapback] Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution- absolutely nothing. In addition Jefferson was the theoretical poster child of the Anti-Federalists and practiced Federalism as President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 Would it not be better for the strict constructionists be crusty old historians? This debate is as old as the Constitution - this is not a new argument made up by Delay. JEfferson believed in a living constitution that would be rewitten be each generation. Others of the time believed as did Scalia. I believe that the "strict constructionist" point of view is contrary to common sense. Society and culture changes over time - that is simply a natural state of affairs. It is simply delusional to believe that we can maintain a single interpretation - i.e, the founders' intent - for over 200 years. Also social circumstances change. For example, how can the view of the founders' be used to interpret how property law or copyright law applies to the internet? Also, strict constructionists would tell you that you do not have a guaranteed right to privacy because it was not an enumumerated right. To me, as it did Douglas, that flies in the face of logic. 352365[/snapback] I quite agree that events change and knowledge expands. That a right to privacy in papers and person exists and existed few would doubt. Could it be held that the unborn at SOME POINT of development have standing, have 14th amendment protection? Scott Peterson was paradoxically convicted of murdering a child in utero which Lacy and a "caring" doctor could have dispatched with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 Are there not more effective nausea reducing drugs than pot? Many suspect that the alternatives are more effective. Obviously superior non hallucinagenic drugs do not fit libertines agendae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Are there not more effective nausea reducing drugs than pot? Many suspect that the alternatives are more effective. Obviously superior non hallucinagenic drugs do not fit libertines agendae. 354163[/snapback] I could argue with you on this - but I won't. I will only say that my 26 year old brother died of a very aggressive and painful lymphoma. The only thing that allowed him to eat and helped his pain was marijuana. The Doctor was so desperate that he allowed me to take my brother for "walks" where I would give him the joint. With it my brother had a chance - without it he was wasting away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 I could argue with you on this - but I won't. I will only say that my 26 year old brother died of a very aggressive and painful lymphoma. The only thing that allowed him to eat and helped his pain was marijuana. The Doctor was so desperate that he allowed me to take my brother for "walks" where I would give him the joint. With it my brother had a chance - without it he was wasting away. 354171[/snapback] If MJ is the ONLY and/ or most effective thing then there is no argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 If MJ is the ONLY and/ or most effective thing then there is no argument. 354197[/snapback] Yeah, because people react to all drugs the same. Why is it so important for you to be everyone's nanny? You are a sad person to believe the worst about everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Yeah, because people react to all drugs the same. Why is it so important for you to be everyone's nanny? You are a sad person to believe the worst about everyone. 354240[/snapback] Because he's WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY smarter than everyone else - despite not understanding the word freedom any better than the politicians who throw it around but don't practice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Do you guys read this stuff? Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere. In case you cant find it...it is here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454 What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. States cannot override federal law. Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal. Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit. The court is okay with that. This is NOT a states right issue. You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case. Facts are facts. Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal. 352451[/snapback] My understanding is that the only way the federal gov't can justify jurisdiction over pot is the oversight of interstate commerce. If I plant it, grow it, cultivate it, and smoke it on my own property, wouldn't that mean that technically, I'm not violating federal law, or at least not a federal law that is constitutional, ie, designed to regulate interstate commerce? As some of you know, I'm looking at radiation (or possibly chemo). If I need to fire up a doob to help lessen the side effects, or if perhaps I develop glaucoma from nuking my eye, so be it. I'm gonna fire up a doob. Screw 'em. It's not a federal issue IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 My understanding is that the only way the federal gov't can justify jurisdiction over pot is the oversight of interstate commerce. If I plant it, grow it, cultivate it, and smoke it on my own property, wouldn't that mean that technically, I'm not violating federal law, or at least not a federal law that is constitutional, ie, designed to regulate interstate commerce? As some of you know, I'm looking at radiation (or possibly chemo). If I need to fire up a doob to help lessen the side effects, or if perhaps I develop glaucoma from nuking my eye, so be it. I'm gonna fire up a doob. Screw 'em. It's not a federal issue IMHO. 354284[/snapback] Well usually the Renquist Court would agree with you - see my above comment. If a Court screws an issue up, at least they should do so in a consistent manner. This Court has muddied the Commerce Clause rendering it impossible to predict when Congress has overstepped its bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 BTW, does Clarence Thomas get any credit for being against this opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 BTW, does Clarence Thomas get any credit for being against this opinion? 354704[/snapback] Clarance Thomas could rescue an old lady from a burning building and he'd still get no respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 BTW, does Clarence Thomas get any credit for being against this opinion? 354704[/snapback] Gold star for Clarence. How many opinions has he written, now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Here this may help you, though you could have googled it NJSUE. http://justicethomas.tripod.com/id6.html Damn, GG. Whats wrong with people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Here this may help you, though you could have googled it NJSUE. http://justicethomas.tripod.com/id6.html Damn, GG. Whats wrong with people 354761[/snapback] sarcasm doesn't translate to well to message boards, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Are there not more effective nausea reducing drugs than pot? Many suspect that the alternatives are more effective. Obviously superior non hallucinagenic drugs do not fit libertines agendae. 354163[/snapback] Are there any more effective nausea inducing posts than beausox's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 Because he's WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY smarter than everyone else - despite not understanding the word freedom any better than the politicians who throw it around but don't practice it. 354268[/snapback] It is so easy to be considered smart when your detractors are so limited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 Are there any more effective nausea inducing posts than beausox's? 354908[/snapback] and all the encouraging my dear.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 It is so easy to be considered smart when your detractors are so limited 355194[/snapback] A legend in your own mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 A legend in your own mind... 355251[/snapback] Well, it's obviously lonely in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Well, it's obviously lonely in there. 355262[/snapback] But at least he seems to have an active imagination. Of course, given that he can't discriminate between fiction and non-fiction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts