Iraq will lose this election for McCain

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

Yes, marijuana is also good for that. I think conservatives often have such a knee jerk reaction against drugs that are currently illegal that they are resistant to allowing their use. They are afraid they'll be sending the wrong message if they're legalized. But why the inconsistency? Why not make alcohol illegal again?

Banning alcohol is perfectly OK with me. I don’t drink and the closest I come to using alcohol is keeping a bottle of vodka for vanilla extract.

There are 150,000 deaths by overdose on alcohol, but 0 for marijuana. Alcohol is provoking of violence whereas maijuana isn't. Alcohol has been found by "Car and Driver" magazine to worsen motor skills more than marijuana.

What about all of the people that are killed or maimed by people that are high on pot?

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

“Judge gives 10-year sentence to man who killed pastor and son in LincolnCounty wreck while high on marijuana”

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

“Many people are surprised to find out that after alcohol, marijuana is the next most prevalent substance found in impaired drivers.”

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

“Shot dead two teenage friends - Tenille Thompson and Brandy Gray - inside a mobile home while high on marijuana.”

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

Is support of public education at the state level a liberal position?

I don’t see public education as either a left or right issue. It is a matter of national security.

Incidentally, I neglected to rebut your poisition concerning the Northwest Ordinance. True, the Northwest Ordinance set aside land for the purpose of public education, but it was not the intent for the Federal Government to be involved in it.

Your documentation for this is what?

If the federal government assumed a role in funding public education, how did it not also assume a role in managing public education?

I am not sure if it was part of the Homestead Laws, but Laura Ingalls Wilder’s family was the first family to settle in DeSmet South Dakota. And because they were among the first families to homestead Laura’s father was automatically on the school board for the township. If this was part of the homestead law, then the federal government did assume a role in deciding how public schools would be run.

Flaja, you seem to be taking a liberal position on this. Conservatives always talk against an activist judiciary, but here you are calling for just that.

When it comes to insuring equal treatment under the law you’re dammed right I am for an activist judiciary.

Conservatives believe in original intent

The issue of the Constitution’s original intent is as old as the document itself, and determining original intent has always been a most difficult task.

Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings? And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?

What about Edmund Randolph, who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Convention, then refused to sign the document because he though the central government would have too much power and then ended up supporting ratification before serving in Washington's cabinet? What was Randolph's original intent?

What about Alexander Hamilton? He spoke only briefly at the Convention and then went home because New York's other two delegates always outvoted him. But Hamilton then returned to the Convention after those other delegates had left the Convention themselves. Hamilton played only a little role in writing the Constitution, but he had a major influence on how the Constitution was implemented.

And what about James Madison? Both Hamilton and Madison were authors of the Federalist Papers, but once the government was set up they joined opposing political factions- Hamilton a Federalist in favor of a strong government, Madison an Antifederalist in favor of a limited government.

And then there's George Washington who refused to exercise any presidential leadership (while also usurping the power of the federal courts) by refusing to veto any legislation he did not personally think was unconstitutional no matter how much he personally disagreed with the legislation.

So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates. But, the Journal was not published until 1818 and Madison's notes were not published until 1840. That means the nation did not know what the Framers really wanted the Constitution to mean for the first 50 years of the document's existence.

The Constitution itself is little help. The Framers left the Constitution intentionally vague in many places. For example, what does a term of "good behavior" mean? Does it mean a federal judge has lifetime tenure as long as he does not violate statutory law? Or does it mean, as many libertarians and a few right-wing types believe, that the judge can serve as long as he does not issue a ruling that certain segments of the population object to?

Also, what is cruel and unusual punishment? Why was hanging acceptable at one time, but not now?

And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." Just who is the Lord that the Constitution acknowledges?

The alternative to original intent is the concept that the Constitution is a living document; it means whatever the courts, the Congress and the Executive Branch says it means and whatever the public is willing to accept at the moment. The Constitution is a living document that can be adapted to the prevailing conditions of the current day. Whether or not those prevailing conditions are good for the country and whether or not our national reaction to these conditions is prudent, are political matters, not constitutional ones.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

Here is a pretty good stroy of what I was talking about.


Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug. The actual story shows a much different picture.

Then how do you explain the fact that marijuana is a dangerous drug?

[Herb Schaffler]

"Banning alcohol is perfectly OK with me. I don’t drink and the closest I come to using alcohol is keeping a bottle of vodka for vanilla extract."

So you don't care if other people's rights are violated?

"What about all of the people that are killed or maimed by people that are high on pot?"

Some people use it responsibly in the same way some drinkers drink responsibly. Should their rights be violated because some don't drink or smoke responsibly? Some people don't use guns responsibly and some people don't drive responsibly. Should we take guns and cars away from everybody because some people use them improperly?

[Herb Schaffler]

"If the federal government assumed a role in funding public education, how did it not also assume a role in managing public education?"

Did they fund it or just set aside land to be used for public schooling?

By the way, did you know that Laura Ingalls Wilder is a hero of libertarians?

"Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings?"

You can get an idea of the thinking of three of our Founding Fathers in the "Federalist Papers" by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton? You can certainly get an idea of the father of our Constitution's original intent on many matters by reading what he had to say in the Federalist Papers. Ther's also lots of extant correspondence from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams among others.

"And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

That is just a common way of stating a year.

"The alternative to original intent is the concept that the Constitution is a living document"

flaja, do you even know the difference between a liberal and a conservative? Conservative jurisprudence supports "original intent". Liberals are stron believers in the Constitution as a "living document".

[Herb Schaffler]

"Then how do you explain the fact that marijuana is a dangerous drug?"

flaja, have you ever smoked it? Any drug can be dangerous if not used properly. Believe it or not, any drug can also be used safely if used properly. Ofcourse, the illegality of drugs makes many of them more dangerous than they would be in a legal market. They are unregulated, so you don't know what they're cut with. They are heavily concentrated, thus more dangerous, because it's easier to transport heavily concentrated drugs. When alcohol was illegal, it was also more dangerous with people dieing from it or going blind. Alcohol was re-legalized mainly because it was fueling a crime wave. Illegal drugs are also creating a crime wave in these times.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

"Banning alcohol is perfectly OK with me. I don’t drink and the closest I come to using alcohol is keeping a bottle of vodka for vanilla extract."

So you don't care if other people's rights are violated?

"What about all of the people that are killed or maimed by people that are high on pot?"

Some people use it responsibly in the same way some drinkers drink responsibly. Should their rights be violated because some don't drink or smoke responsibly? Some people don't use guns responsibly and some people don't drive responsibly. Should we take guns and cars away from everybody because some people use them improperly?

How many bottles do you drink between drafts on your pot cigarette?

[Herb Schaffler]

I have smoked marijuana in the past. It's not nearly the dangerous drug that some would make it out to be.

As for my drinking habits, I drink one small glass of red wine every evening when I get home from work.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

I have smoked marijuana in the past.

I rest my case. If you are not a pothead, then it doesn’t make any personal difference to you if marijuana is illegal. The only way you stand to personally gain anything from the legalization of marijuana is if you plan to use it yourself.

[Herb Schaffler]

flaja, I don't support individual freedom only if it benefits me.