Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize that you seem to be an ardent libertarian. I think it would be best to point out that we are not a nation founded on libertarian principles, and through our history, we have not adopted libertarianism as the defining characteristic of our governments or society.
We are a nation founded on individual liberties first and foremost. My arguments center around that concept.
I don't follow, what does the federal government have to do with it? Aside from perhaps funding a study at some point regarding second hand smoke, or withholding funds if the state doesn't comply, which I don't think occurs in this case.
I said indirectly, and explained why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
Also, why would it be unconstitutional for the locale to decide?
Can the locale also decide to enslave a given race within that area? You can not violate individual liberties. Its a basic concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
Most people don't smoke, and most people don't like second hand smoke, regulating the use of it in businesses therefore isn't really all that surprising. That's why I'm in favor of these regulations.
And that is self interest based logic. You are essentially saying that majority opinion trumps the individual liberty of a minority. Something the founders would greatly disagree with you about.
We are a nation founded on individual liberties first and foremost. My arguments center around that concept.
Not really. Recall that until the passage of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is why states didn't need to have warrants, could establish state religions, could in fact ban people of certain religions couldn't even serve in elected positions on behalf of their state (as examples).
Those individual liberties you value so were only protected from interference by the federal government, not the state governments.
Quote:
Can the locale also decide to enslave a given race within that area? You can not violate individual liberties. Its a basic concept.
Sure we can, and we do.
Can't enslave anyone though, because the 13th amendment disallows that. If you'll recall, before the 13th amendment and the civil war, states did allow people to be enslaved. Such a basic concept, it took about 70 years and a war to settle it.
Quote:
And that is self interest based logic. You are essentially saying that majority opinion trumps the individual liberty of a minority. Something the founders would greatly disagree with you about.
These are the founders that owned slaves, and didn't allow women or poor men to vote, right?
Our government is based on balancing the rights of minorities with the desires of the majority, not that individual liberty of a minority trumps the desire of the majority.
Besides, smokers aren't a suspect class, so the review would be rational basis.
If you had read my post more closely, you would have understood that the bar owners -- not the bar and grill owners -- are seeing a decrease in sales.
<snip>
The figures are deceiving -- mix bars and restaurants together to make it appear that all are doing well, when in reality, only one segment saw an increase.
Bar owners -- the guy who serves nothing but alcohol and perhaps some popcorn -- have seen a decrease in sales.
Very true OhBeeHave. This is a trick that antismoking advocates have been using for years. One of the best recent examples was in Minnesota where Elizabeth Klein et al got a half million dollar grant by promising to produce results that would support that state's ban activity, then got government employment numbers (NAICS) that showed the literal decimation of bar employment and the far less affected restaurant employment, deliberately mixed the two together thereby hiding the disaster -- and produced a heavily headlined study "Bar AND restaurant employment not harmed by smoking bans." {Emphasis mine.}
You can see the full story on the study and the grant process in Jacob Grier's column and my aftercomments on it at:
Not really. Recall that until the passage of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is why states didn't need to have warrants, could establish state religions, could in fact ban people of certain religions couldn't even serve in elected positions on behalf of their state (as examples).
Those individual liberties you value so were only protected from interference by the federal government, not the state governments.
Read the 14th amendment. Again, it is concerning slaves "not being considered citizens of the US" and so obviously those liberties would not be considered. That doesn't support your claim.
Equal protection clause was a procedural requirement of a certain process, not an affirmation of none existing before. Again, this doesn't support your claim.
The 14th amendment is not an installment of a new measure, merely a clarification to which was already supposed to be recognized by the constitution, but ignored by states and communities.
For the federal government protecting my individual liberties, umm... What the hell do you think they were empowered to do? Seriously... that is one of their functions.
I don't have a problem with central government. I have problem with central government dictating and state governments acting like they can dictate the liberties of individuals as well. If the federal government were doing what it is supposed to be doing "providing for the defense and promoting the general welfare" when we wouldn't have a problem, but don't tell me taxing me for numerous social programs and instituting proactive restrictions on freedoms is "promoting the general welfare", it is far from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
Sure we can, and we do.
Can't enslave anyone though, because the 13th amendment disallows that. If you'll recall, before the 13th amendment and the civil war, states did allow people to be enslaved. Such a basic concept, it took about 70 years and a war to settle it.
No you can't First, the 13 amendment was for non-citizens abolishing slavery. It also abolished involuntary servitude, a common practice in our history and before the country which people did because they couldn't afford to pay for something they wanted. A large portion of people (white people as well) purchased their passage to the colonies using involuntary servitude as the price and they worked for the person who bought their passage until it was paid in full.
You suggest that a town could simply pick some random citizen off the street and vote to enslave them and it was perfectly acceptable. It is absurd and ignorant of our history.
Also your ignorance of the civil war is astounding. The civil war was fought over state rights, not slavery. The north was extremely pro slavery and was known for their poor treatment of their slaves while the south was known for more making them members of the family, giving them land and their freedom when they aged. The slavery Lincoln fair tale was a propaganda stunt, he would have never freed them if he could have gotten away with it.
Not to mention, the south was going through a major drought at the time and the north was price gouging them for supplies. So they started trading out of country, to which the north instated a tariff to force them to trade with them again. This led to the secession of the states and the desperate backhanded plotting and staging to incite a war by the north. You do realize that Lincoln urinated on the states rights do you not?
/boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
These are the founders that owned slaves, and didn't allow women or poor men to vote, right?
And why didn't they? I am not going to keep correcting your severe ignorance and twist to make your position. Now you are claiming that the issues of individual liberty are not valid because of the violations in those specifics in order to what... justify violations now? *chuckle* umm... okie...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
Our government is based on balancing the rights of minorities with the desires of the majority, not that individual liberty of a minority trumps the desire of the majority.
This doesn't even deserve a response, it is beyond ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
Besides, smokers aren't a suspect class, so the review would be rational basis.
...
Wow... I...
Not going to even bother with that reasoning. /boggle
So you're saying that our founders wanted the federal constitution to be applicable against the states, but the states just ignored it and no one ever did anything about it?
I'd be interested to learn from what you derive this conclusion... You're civil war caused by price gauging thing is fun, too, but... Not sure where you get all this stuff from.
Also - non suspect class, rational basis and such is part of the equal protection analysis that the courts perform. You should look it up.
Does Obama have to abide by the smoking ban since he could potentially burn down the White House sitting up smoking cigs and drinking suds? He could fall asleep and whooosh, there goes 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Knowing Barry, he'll lie and say a wildfire broke out in Michelle's garden
I could imagine the jokes that would be told about that. Obama first destroys the nation, then burns down the White house on his way out.. haha
Which doesn't have anything to do with the law this thread is about.
However, those federal laws are supported by the ICC, and the SCOTUS has upheld those laws as being constitutional, so, for now...
In case you didn't notice, the topic is "Is a smoking ban, a violation of property rights?"
So yes, Federal bans on smoking are on topic.
And please tell me where the Feds get the authority to ban smoking. The Supreme Court will obviously support any expansion of Federal power... and to hell with the constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tricks And Lies In Antismokerville
