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.
Here's where I get confused -- and I am embarrassed to admit it -- if an amendment is made to the Constitution, would that make the amendment part of Constitutional Law?
Until it is repealed (which was the case with eighteenth amendment, and the only amendment to have met that fate).
Well, the problem is, the government has no authority to regulate and ban those as well. These social mandate violations only exist because society has accepted them and the government allowed majority oppression to stand. Prohibition was tried, but it failed because society rebelled against it.
The point is, the government is overstepping its bounds in those areas as well. It is an example of how we betray our protections of liberties with the social mob.
And in many cases it's not even the majority. Our governments power has grown astronomically over the past century. And because it only grows a little each year, the people do not notice or get upset. But once laws get established, they are virtually impossible to remove even when the majority of people don't agree with them.
And that's why government spending has grown from 7% of GDP to almost 45% over the past century. It's death by a thousand paper cuts.
Another example of a violation of the social mob to dictate to another in establishing mandates and conditions to such. The government has been overstepping its boundaries from the moment of its inception, it was the job of the people to keep it limited and in check. In the last 100 years though (though Lincoln was a major violator as well) the infringement has been severe.
Actually, Lincoln is the one who changed the course of this country to expand the power of the Federal government at the expense of freedom and local control. He set us on a course of ever expanding federal government power and today we see the result. The states are powerless. The ruling elite in DC control the vast majority of decisions that affect our lives.
If you oppose a big bloated all powerful federal government, you would agree that Lincoln was the worst president we have ever had.
Here's where I get confused -- and I am embarrassed to admit it -- if an amendment is made to the Constitution, would that make the amendment part of Constitutional Law?
1) Tobacco smoke is composed of mostly well understood chemicals that already are regulated in the workplace by various agencies. The logical thing to do would be to treat tobacco smoke like you would any other potential pollutant, the constituents of tobacco smoke have to be within acceptable levels. Smoking bans ignore this. They are not about "clean air", but no tobacco smoke.
Fine, only problem is that you will find that the "acceptable" levels for tobacco smoke are so small that there is no alternative to reducing the hazard as found by this 2008 study by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (who by the way could receive a tidy little sum if they had found that some nifty ventilation system would do the trick)
(as opposed to looking up the facts sheet from Smoke Free Idahoans For Smoke Free Bars) and guess what? About 40% of secondhand smoke studies actually show the opposite effect of a health risk and most of the 60% that show an increase in risk it is usually small enough to be considered statistically insignificant. Plus, some of the largest secondhand smoke studies have been the ones that show a reduction in risk or a very small increase in risk.
See citation above, no "I have read over 100 [un-cited] studies from research which I can not verify were not funded by tobacco companies." When you do, call me.
Anotherwords, you dont want to discuss any argument which says you could be wrong and though simply by saying "dont give me that argument which says I'm wrong", people would not discuss you being wrong. FAIL!!!
No, what I said was to spare me the threadbare libertarian arguments. We have been there done that on a whole host of issues I see no reason to continually work over a topic that has been worked to death. Come up with something new and we might have a basis for a conversation.
Not quite true indeed. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can tell me what to eat, drink or smoke.
Interstate commerce. However, the federal constitution does not limit a state government's police powers in regards to limiting what you can eat, drink, or smoke.
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.
