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

Manny Davis wrote:
> 
> brian bennett wrote:
> 
> > Manny Davis wrote:

<snipped older stuff>

> > 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?

bummer isn't it?  too bad the people who drafted and ratified the 16th didn't
take into account what happens when you don't keep the shackles on the
governors.  they fucked up royal by granting the government what is basically an
*unlimited* power to take the citizens' income.

i'd say that needs to be fixed.

<snipped tax stuff>

> > 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.

i have no idea what "wadr" is supposed to mean, and i would argue that i
certainly demonstrate a full comprehension of the differences between rights and
powers, despite a one sentence lapse here and there -- sorry, i type fast and
can be lazy during proofreading.  we're having a discussion on usenet, not
writing dissertations or drafting laws.
 
> 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.

but you knew what i meant.
 
<snipped master and slave bits>

> > 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.

i'm with you, and glad to meet another person with a strong enough will to
challenge the status quo and work for positive change.

 
> <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.

general franks thinks like a military man -- that's a good thing considering his
occupation, but any attack on the u.s. will most certainly *not* result in
martial law as the resources to do so are largely deployed elsewhere.
 
> 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.

interesting choice of venue
 
> 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.

treating the citizens as enemies of the state will in no way offer us solace,
security, or the prevention of further attacks.
 
> 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.

i'd call for "heavy" to be defined as well in excess of the number who die from
the flu every year.  

the problem is that fear leads people to desperation -- and i've never seen a
more fearful group than that currently running the show in america.  they sicken
and disgust me with their false bravado.  
 
> 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."

we can only keep it to the extent that we defend and demand it.  i personally
sowre to defend us from *all* enemies -- and the only ones who can steal my
freedom aren't living in caves in south central asia.
 
> 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."

if such an attack were to occur, throwing out the constitution would do
*nothing* at all to prevent another similar attack -- just as having the most
powerful military in the world did nothing to prevent 9/11
 
> Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

smart man.
 
> 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.

only to the extent that we allow it to occur -- like i keep saying, the only
real threats to our freedom come from washington dc.
 
> 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.

he needs to get in line behind william cohen who while secretary of defense said
the same thing back around 1998.

thus the problem with being eternally vigilant and on guard against tyranny.

> >  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.

i know, it makes me sick. i have a copy of it right here in front of me on my
desk and read it all the time -- since i swore to die or kill in its defense i
thought it would be a good idea to know what i am defending.  i wonder how far
off kilter things have to get before people start paying attention.
 
> 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.

the framework was laid at our feet -- we appear to have made at least some
progress over the past 227 years.  we clearly have not finished the job left to
us.  and as long as we call ourselves "americans" we are bound to live up to it.
 
> > 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?

to live by the tenets of americanism and to control those granted power.  it
does require that the citizens pay attention.

b
-- 
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.

visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com 

Ask these former drug warriors why drugwar doesn't work: 
http://www.leap.cc