Contradiction in the Constitution...

[Mensch]

Your assertion was that we do not need regulations for recreational drugs because it doesn't make sense for recreational drug companies to sell products that actively harm their consumers.

I pointed out that there has been a history of recreational drug companies selling products that actively harm their consumers. Such history comes from the tobacco companies, whose private research discovered the addictive and carcinogenic qualities, which does harm to consumers of tobacco products, of their product and that not only did they not make such research known to the public, in lawsuits they denied every having such knowledge.

Therefore, my assertion that government regulations for recreational drugs are still needed as a from of consumer protection for recreational drug users should recreational drugs ever be legalized still stands.

Perhaps if we were having this discussion in the 1960's, I might have agreed with you. But given the invention of the worldwide web, I see no excuse for ignorance. It is your responsibility to protect yourself from the products or services that you purchase. I agree with laws that prohibit the falsification of information, but that's about it. Beyond that, it is up to you to research before you buy. I think the tobacco example is weak, and further illustrates my point that you don't need government all the time to tell you how to live your life. Human beings have been smoking for centuries. It can't be that we suddenly discovered it caused ill health effects after the government decided to pursue an investigation.

 

[samsmart]

Perhaps if we were having this discussion in the 1960's, I might have agreed with you. But given the invention of the worldwide web, I see no excuse for ignorance. It is your responsibility to protect yourself from the products or services that you purchase. I agree with laws that prohibit the falsification of information, but that's about it. Beyond that, it is up to you to research before you buy. I think the tobacco example is weak, and further illustrates my point that you don't need government all the time to tell you how to live your life. Human beings have been smoking for centuries. It can't be that we suddenly discovered it caused ill health effects after the government decided to pursue an investigation.

The tobacco cases happened in the 1990's. Those who filed lawsuits were those who started smoking before then. Explicitly during the 1960's, when they got addicted to smoking.

Also, while you may have no faith in the government, you put too much in the internet. The internet is an excellent example of infodumping - there's just too much information out there, and much of it can conflict with each other.

And another thing - the reason why the tobacco companies were sued wasn't because they were selling products that were harmful to their consumers (a practice that you maintain the doublethink that it's okay for companies to do so while also maintaining that companies would never do it because of the idiocy of an industry that kills off it's customers); rather, they were sued because they lied about and withheld research regarding the extent of how harmful their product was.

It's not that they sold addictive and carcinogenic products to consumers - it's that they lied about how addictive and carcinogenic their products are. They withheld this from consumers in order to make a greater amount of profit.

And you mention about how Americans have been smoking tobacco for centuries. Yes, that is true - however, tobacco companies include many different additives to their tobacco products, and these increase the harmful nature of their products.

So no, my argument isn't weak at all.

 

[Mensch]

The tobacco cases happened in the 1990's. Those who filed lawsuits were those who started smoking before then. Explicitly during the 1960's, when they got addicted to smoking.

Also, while you may have no faith in the government, you put too much in the internet. The internet is an excellent example of infodumping - there's just too much information out there, and much of it can conflict with each other.

And another thing - the reason why the tobacco companies were sued wasn't because they were selling products that were harmful to their consumers (a practice that you maintain the doublethink that it's okay for companies to do so while also maintaining that companies would never do it because of the idiocy of an industry that kills off it's customers); rather, they were sued because they lied about and withheld research regarding the extent of how harmful their product was.

It's not that they sold addictive and carcinogenic products to consumers - it's that they lied about how addictive and carcinogenic their products are. They withheld this from consumers in order to make a greater amount of profit.

And you mention about how Americans have been smoking tobacco for centuries. Yes, that is true - however, tobacco companies include many different additives to their tobacco products, and these increase the harmful nature of their products.

So no, my argument isn't weak at all.

So maybe I should have made a distinction between things that obviously will kill you and things that are not suppose to kill you. For example, any idiot should know that alcohol and tobacco use, over long periods of time, may kill you. A car, driven correctly, shouldn't kill you. Therefore, it's a well known fact that some companies are in the business of killing their customers over an extended period of time, and their customers are okay with this (because they choose their own vices). A car company is not in the business of killing people, and a car company that continues to produce deadly cars will cease to exist. It's not profitable in that sense. It is profitable when the customer wants to enjoy poisoning him or herself.

And infodumping on the Internet is not that much different than the countless brochures, catalogues, booklets, procedure guides, etc. that are suppose to help individuals navigate through tough decisions. As a libertarian, my number one enemy is not governmental information databases. Food labels and warning labels are appropriate, to some degree. But here in California, when there's a sign that says "chemicals known to the state of CA to cause cancer have been found in this location" on every restaurant and retail store, it sort of negates the purpose. If someone actually took the signs seriously, then no one would shop anywhere without getting cancer. Wasn't that a popular song from the 1970s? Everything Causes Cancer? Where did they get the inspiration for that song?

 

[Mensch]

I was wrong. It's not from the 1970s.

 

[samsmart]

So maybe I should have made a distinction between things that obviously will kill you and things that are not suppose to kill you. For example, any idiot should know that alcohol and tobacco use, over long periods of time, may kill you. A car, driven correctly, shouldn't kill you. Therefore, it's a well known fact that some companies are in the business of killing their customers over an extended period of time, and their customers are okay with this (because they choose their own vices). A car company is not in the business of killing people, and a car company that continues to produce deadly cars will cease to exist. It's not profitable in that sense. It is profitable when the customer wants to enjoy poisoning him or herself.

You know, it's funny that mention the auto industry not being in the business of killing people, when they resisted implementing safety features, such as seatbelts, in their automobiles because they believed that installing such safety features would make cars seem unsafe.

Until the late 1960s and early 1970s, the automotive industry in the U.S. was almost entirely unregulated, and concern over traffic safety had been minimal. In 1965 an estimated 50,000 people were killed in automobile crashes. That same year, the Senate passed a two-year, $320 million highway beautification bill that provided $5 million for a study of ways to dispose of scrapped cars, and a meager $500,000 for a study of highway safety.

The auto industry at the time believed that safety would not sell, and that an emphasis on a car's safety features would scare the public. Advertising instead generally focused on a car's comfort, style, and performance. At the same time, efforts to reduce traffic crashes never focused on the automobile, but rather on the driver or the road.

From: Prevention Institute: Seatbelts: Current Issues

And infodumping on the Internet is not that much different than the countless brochures, catalogues, booklets, procedure guides, etc. that are suppose to help individuals navigate through tough decisions. As a libertarian, my number one enemy is not governmental information databases. Food labels and warning labels are appropriate, to some degree. But here in California, when there's a sign that says "chemicals known to the state of CA to cause cancer have been found in this location" on every restaurant and retail store, it sort of negates the purpose. If someone actually took the signs seriously, then no one would shop anywhere without getting cancer. Wasn't that a popular song from the 1970s? Everything Causes Cancer? Where did they get the inspiration for that song?

So because California may be overregulated with regards to safety standards, government regulations shouldn't exist?

 

[Mensch]

You know, it's funny that mention the auto industry not being in the business of killing people, when they resisted implementing safety features, such as seatbelts, in their automobiles because they believed that installing such safety features would make cars seem unsafe.



From: Prevention Institute: Seatbelts: Current Issues



So because California may be overregulated with regards to safety standards, government regulations shouldn't exist?

1) Seatbelts are smart, but should not be required of every adult person. I would agree with requiring adults to strap children in seatbelts. But adults should have the luxury, and the right, to choose how he or she wants to go about his or her daily life. If people want to rock climb, let them do it. Not wear seatbelts or helmets? Go for it! Motorcycles? Sure! I think the argument is very subject that we must require seatbelts and helmets, but we don't restrict things like rock climbing, skydiving, bungee jumping, and motorcycles. If all we need is a huge number of dead people listed as a statistic to pass restrictive regulation, then we haven't gone far enough! Where do you draw the line? You draw the line at the feet of the individual, and let them decide.

2) Obviously, you don't like to read what I write. I said some labels may be appropriate. Again, it's not my biggest concern.

 

[American]

1) Seatbelts are smart, but should not be required of every adult person. I would agree with requiring adults to strap children in seatbelts. But adults should have the luxury, and the right, to choose how he or she wants to go about his or her daily life. If people want to rock climb, let them do it. Not wear seatbelts or helmets? Go for it! Motorcycles? Sure! I think the argument is very subject that we must require seatbelts and helmets, but we don't restrict things like rock climbing, skydiving, bungee jumping, and motorcycles. If all we need is a huge number of dead people listed as a statistic to pass restrictive regulation, then we haven't gone far enough! Where do you draw the line? You draw the line at the feet of the individual, and let them decide.

2) Obviously, you don't like to read what I write. I said some labels may be appropriate. Again, it's not my biggest concern.

This premise only works if no tax dollars are ever spent due to an injury or death.

 

[samsmart]

1) Seatbelts are smart, but should not be required of every adult person. I would agree with requiring adults to strap children in seatbelts. But adults should have the luxury, and the right, to choose how he or she wants to go about his or her daily life. If people want to rock climb, let them do it. Not wear seatbelts or helmets? Go for it! Motorcycles? Sure! I think the argument is very subject that we must require seatbelts and helmets, but we don't restrict things like rock climbing, skydiving, bungee jumping, and motorcycles. If all we need is a huge number of dead people listed as a statistic to pass restrictive regulation, then we haven't gone far enough! Where do you draw the line? You draw the line at the feet of the individual, and let them decide.

Apparently you didn't read the article.

The issue wasn't that the government tried to force car manufacturers to build cars with seatbelts or pass laws making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory.

The issue was that the car manufacturers refused to even include safety features such as seatbelts because they thought buyers would think that cars were unsafe and wouldn't purchase their cars.

I'm all for giving people choice as well. However, consumer protections protect consumers, and manufacturers and businesses need to give consumers choices as well. So car manufacturers should include such safety features and allow the consumer to utilize them. And the standards for such safety features can be regulated by the government.

2) Obviously, you don't like to read what I write. I said some labels may be appropriate. Again, it's not my biggest concern.

Okay. But just because California overregulates doesn't mean regulations are innately a bad thing. I'm just pointing that out.

 

[Mensch]

You know, it's funny that mention the auto industry not being in the business of killing people, when they resisted implementing safety features, such as seatbelts, in their automobiles because they believed that installing such safety features would make cars seem unsafe.



From: Prevention Institute: Seatbelts: Current Issues



So because California may be overregulated with regards to safety standards, government regulations shouldn't exist?

I did read the article.

1) The auto manufacturers should not be blamed for responding to consumer demand. Back in the day, there were fewer cars and fewer fatalities. Seatbelts were not a priority for consumers and therefore they were not a priority for producers. You seem to think businesses control your spending decisions.

2) It's a nice topic to have. Ultimately, we don't know where to draw the line. We can prevent a lot of deaths on the roadway by reducing the number of motorcyles. We can prevent a lot of deaths by taxing motorists and leaving them no other option but public transportation.

3) For the most part, government regulations should not exist. I think I've made it known to you that I am a conservationist libertarian, and I do believe in the protection of the natural environment. Governments have a fundamental purpose, but regulating our daily lives should never be included.

As a side note, I would not support forcing individual states to deregulate. But California is a great example of overregulation. It never seems to solve the original problem and it only manages to create new problems. Just take the not-so-recent energy crisis.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The founders of the constitution so desperately hoped that the nation would always strive to protect individual liberties and the rights of the states. This is especially true when considering the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights. However, the whole "federal law trumps state law" basically negates the protection of state's rights because the Feds can simply pass a law and it will always supersede ANY state law. This is the greatest canundrum of our nation: Centralized or Decentralized?

The federal government can't just *do whatever they want* though - they have to answer to the citizens and to the constitution . . . which is why countless measures passed by the fed and state governments have been overruled by the Supreme court purely on this basis.

It's a check and balance system - which gives more weight to the people and states than most other form of governments do.

 

[American]

The federal government can't just *do whatever they want* though - they have to answer to the citizens and to the constitution . . . which is why countless measures passed by the fed and state governments have been overruled by the Supreme court purely on this basis.

It's a check and balance system - which gives more weight to the people and states than most other form of governments do.

The problem is the regulatory "creep" in the system that incrementally removes liberty.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The problem is the regulatory "creep" in the system that incrementally removes liberty.

Yep - creeping, I agree with that concern.

A little change here- some alteration over there . . . .slow move in a different direction.

 

[samsmart]

The problem is the regulatory "creep" in the system that incrementally removes liberty.

Consumer protections are not removals of liberty.

 

[cpwill]

Apparently you didn't read the article.

The issue wasn't that the government tried to force car manufacturers to build cars with seatbelts or pass laws making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory.

The issue was that the car manufacturers refused to even include safety features such as seatbelts because they thought buyers would think that cars were unsafe and wouldn't purchase their cars.

I'm all for giving people choice as well. However, consumer protections protect consumers, and manufacturers and businesses need to give consumers choices as well. So car manufacturers should include such safety features and allow the consumer to utilize them. And the standards for such safety features can be regulated by the government.

so.... you are all about giving people choice.... unless they happen to choose to prefer to purchase cars without seatbelts?

do you really think if there was a demand for seatbelts that automakers would refuse to capitalize on it?

 

[cpwill]

Consumer protections are not removals of liberty.

they most certainly are. those who make things and own businesses are citizens as well as those who buy them.

 

[peepnklown]

@ ElijahGalt
If you are talking about ‘The Supremacy Clause,’ I can see your uneasiness because the federal/national government has used the clause to act as if it has unlimited powers but, this is not true.
@ other
You are correct Sir; this is the correct interpretation of the clause.

 

[jujuman13]

An astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the State of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.


The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, "Does anyone read the US. Constitution these days? American lawyers don't read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our Attorney General Eric Holder.

But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."


In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco , to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue. Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government.


From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.


The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government. And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America ..

 

[samsmart]

so.... you are all about giving people choice.... unless they happen to choose to prefer to purchase cars without seatbelts?

do you really think if there was a demand for seatbelts that automakers would refuse to capitalize on it?

I think that automakers would rather put the blame on other factors than on their cars having a lack of safety features and seatbelts when it comes to preventable deaths caused in automobile accidents.

Which is exactly what happened before independent advocacy groups got the information out.

 

[samsmart]

they most certainly are.

They most certainly are not.

those who make things and own businesses are citizens as well as those who buy them.

I never said they weren't.

 

[Mensch]

I think that automakers would rather put the blame on other factors than on their cars having a lack of safety features and seatbelts when it comes to preventable deaths caused in automobile accidents.

Which is exactly what happened before independent advocacy groups got the information out.

Independent advocacy groups are locally organized groups of people who have the power to persuade corporations to change policy. They came before the government intervention, and it was ther driving force and loud protests that forced the business to comply. If people WANT seatbelts to be safe, because people around them are dying in cars without seatbelts, the business will recognize this demand and respond effectively to it (or go belly-up).

 

[samsmart]

Independent advocacy groups are locally organized groups of people who have the power to persuade corporations to change policy. They came before the government intervention, and it was ther driving force and loud protests that forced the business to comply. If people WANT seatbelts to be safe, because people around them are dying in cars without seatbelts, the business will recognize this demand and respond effectively to it (or go belly-up).

So what you're saying is that if a manufacturer is knowingly producing dangerous and potentially lethal products and can include easy and cheap changes to their product to make it less than lethal, your position is that they shouldn't do so and continue to put the lives of consumers at risk until someone else educates the public on what the manufacturers already know about the dangers of their products?

 

[Mensch]

So what you're saying is that if a manufacturer is knowingly producing dangerous and potentially lethal products and can include easy and cheap changes to their product to make it less than lethal, your position is that they shouldn't do so and continue to put the lives of consumers at risk until someone else educates the public on what the manufacturers already know about the dangers of their products?

I believe it should be up to supply and demand. If the customer wants it, eventually the corporation will sell it to him/her.

You never responded to my last question. You obviously care very much about the safety of consumers, and that by itself, is commendable. However, the most state-of-the-art motorcycle on the street is far more hazardous than a car without airbags and without seatbelts. Shouldn't the next step be to reduce the amount of motorcycles (or outlaw them, entirely) in order to protect the consumer?

 

[BmanMcfly]

The founders of the constitution so desperately hoped that the nation would always strive to protect individual liberties and the rights of the states. This is especially true when considering the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights. However, the whole "federal law trumps state law" basically negates the protection of state's rights because the Feds can simply pass a law and it will always supersede ANY state law. This is the greatest canundrum of our nation: Centralized or Decentralized?

That's a misinterpretation of the 'supremacy clause'... which also bases itself on the assumption that the people wouldn't have allowed already so many attacks on the constitution and bill of rights...

The supremacy clause is in case of CONFLICTING laws, where federal laws cannot be 'trumped' by state laws... but this is assuming constitutional laws to begin with.

IT IS NOT intended like with the Arizona issue, where the feds are essentially saying that you cannot ENFORCE federal laws at the state level... It really shows the governments hand and where they stand on illegal immigration, since they want total amnesty, which is intended to serve as a catalyst for further american-mexican-canadian integration.

Think of it more like this... federal law is meant to be supreme, yet act as a 'minimum acceptable standard'... where states, could not simply create laws making murder legal, for example. Instead, it's the states, as subordinate, yet closer to the people since the power is more limited in scope, but more closely representative of the people living there... Counties / cities even further... and for the individual, so long as he is acting within the laws is a free individual... it's the individual that is sovereign in the picture (at least as the founding fathers pictured things)

So, this is NOT a case of contradiction, but rather this is a case of paradox. Since both conditions seem to be opposing, but they are both true simultaneously.

 

[American]

An astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the State of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.


The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, "Does anyone read the US. Constitution these days? American lawyers don't read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our Attorney General Eric Holder.

But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."


In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco , to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue. Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government.


From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.


The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government. And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America ..

Awesome, so who is this attorney?

 

[American]

So what you're saying is that if a manufacturer is knowingly producing dangerous and potentially lethal products and can include easy and cheap changes to their product to make it less than lethal, your position is that they shouldn't do so and continue to put the lives of consumers at risk until someone else educates the public on what the manufacturers already know about the dangers of their products?

Have you ever heard of Ralph Nader?