Re: DOES THE 9th AMENDMENT PROTECT RESPONSIBLE REC DRUG USE?

brian bennett wrote:

> Manny Davis wrote:
>> 
>> brian bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> > no individual citizen has the *right* to void the self-directed
>> > free choices of another -- thus there can be no *power*
>> > collectively granted to the government to do so.
>> 
>> And since no individual has the right to tax another individual,
>> there can be no power collectively granted to government to do so.
> 
> the power to levy and collect taxes is enumerated, and the 16th
> amendment records the fact that the citizens did indeed collectively
> agree that the power should be given to the government to collect
> income taxes. 

There are no limits specified in the 16th amendment. Therefore congress 
may confiscate up to 100% of a citizens income. Do you really believe the 
people, no, wait...do you really believe *any person* would grant 
congress the power to confiscate, by force, 100% of their income? 

> whether or not they had the right to do so may drive an effort to
> overturn the 16th, but until that is done we are stuck with government
> taxation.  don't like it? change it.
>
>> >  likewise, no individual citizen
>> > has the power to *punish* anothers' self-directed choices, thus
>> > they subsequently cannot collectively grant such a power to the
>> > government 
>> 
>> And since no individual has the "right to rule" over another person,
>> there can be no power collectively granted to the group of people
>> called the state.
> 
> collectively it was agreed that someone needed to be "in charge" --
> that was accomplished through the efforts of the citizens. 
> you do
> indeed possess the "right" of self-governance, so a power to
> collectively govern can be granted. 
> 
> the "right" to govern does not exist -- only the power to do so has
> been granted. you do understand the difference do you not?

WADR, if anyone is confusing rights and powers, it is yourself. 

You wrote this:

"no individual citizen has the *right* to void the self-directed
free choices of another -- thus there can be no *power*
collectively granted to the government to do so."

That's using the words right and power correctly. But then you wrote 
this:

"likewise, no individual citizen has the power to *punish* anothers' 
self-directed choices, thus they subsequently cannot collectively grant 
such a power to the government"

This is incorrect. A person very often has the power to punish another's 
self-directed choices. He just doesn't have the right to. 

>> > -- unless the constitution is amended to grant such power to the
>> > government of course.  the framers left instructions on how to go
>> > about changing the constituion in Article V.
>> 
>> The fact that the constitution can be amended (by government X) to
>> grant any power whatsoever (to government X) demolishes the pretense
>> of a constitution that limits government X's power.
>> 
>> Master: My power over you is limited by this contract.
>> 
>> Slave: But can you change the contract?
>> 
>> Master: Yes, I can change the terms of the contract whenever I wish.
>> 
>> Slave: That doesn't seem fair.
>> 
>> Master: It seems fair to me.
>> 
>> Slave: What if we have a dispute over the details of the contract?
>> 
>> Master: Then I decide which one of us is right.
>> 
>> Slave: Thank goodness I have this contract to limit your power
>> over me. For a minute there I thought I was in trouble.
> 
> if you believe the constitution enslaves you, then by all means do
> something about it.

I believe government in America enslaves me to a degree. We are not by 
any stretch living in Stalinist Russia. But changes can come quick. I'd 
rather speak up now while I can. And don't forget that the constitution 
can be suspended at any time.  

<quote>

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

    John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
    Friday, Nov. 21, 2003 

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of 
mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will 
likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate 
Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the 
men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the 
military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a 
weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, 
it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished 
republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of 
Sept. 11, Franks said that "the worst thing that could happen" is if 
terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon 
that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, "... the Western world, the free world, 
loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen 
for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call 
democracy."

Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in 
the aftermath of such an attack.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, 
massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may 
be in the United States of America - that causes our population to 
question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in 
order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which 
in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two 
steps, very, very important."

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the 
wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail 
civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking 
official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in 
favor of a military form of government.

<snip>


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

</quote>

This is a very powerful man stating that the U.S. constitution could be 
scrapped when it is convenient to do so. 

>  i believe the constitution is our collective
> agreement to treat each other as equals and to create the institutions
> among us that ensures it remains so. 

Today, few people have read the constitution. Many people walking around 
don't even know what it is. Think of everyone you know. How many have 
read the constitution? I do not have one non-internet friend or relative 
that has read the U.S. constitution.

When the constitution was written, few people agreed to it. Women had no 
say. Black people had no say. Only a small percentage of adult white 
males had any say in the matter. That is hardly a collective agreement.

> it is not our form of government
> which is problematic, it is the failure of the citizens to fulfill
> their duties which has brought us to our current state of affairs.

Which duties are those?