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

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:39:35 GMT, brian bennett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:35:31 GMT, brian bennett
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:09:01 GMT, brian bennett
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Great idea. That the govt would dare interfere with my right is
> >> >> >> absurd.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Once such a right did exist in the top lord in an area - he had a
> >> >> >> right to first have sex with new brides.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Doesn't that right still exist?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >i honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or just stupid.  your "rights"
> >> >> >extend only to the point that anothers' rights are not violated.  you only 
> >> >> >have
> >> >> >the "right" to have sex with those adults who grant their bodies to you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That view is the view of libertarians.
> >> >
> >> >i don't call myslef a libertarian, but i certainly espouse the view that to be
> >> >"free" a person must declare their ownership over themselves.
> >> >
> >> >> There are more folks in the world than libertarians. For instance, our
> >> >> Founding Fathers were not libertarians.
> >> >
> >> >no but they certainly knew how to sniff out tyranny over the hearts and minds of
> >> >men and sought to create the framework of a society which would protect the most
> >> >fundamental rights.
> >> >
> >> >> So they did not mean to adopt its views.
> >> >
> >> >nonsense -- the entire intent of the declaration, the revolution and the
> >> >constitution was to institute a system that protects people from the tyranny of
> >> >others.
> >>
> >> To a degree. What degree?
> >
> >to the maximum degree -- the government is denied a power to arbitrarily decide
> >that the citizens *don't* have rights.  the citizens don't have to define all
> >their rights to prevent the government from taking them away.
> >
> >> That's the problem.
> >
> >no, the problem appears to be that you can't comprehend simple english -- i
> >suppose we can blame the "education" system.
> >
> >> Did Jefferson own slaves?
> >
> >what has that got to do with it?  jefferson had *absolutely nothing* to do with
> >drafting the constitution -- but it isn't suprising that you never learned that.
> 
> I don't think that the intent of those writing the constitution was to
> adopt full-bore libertarianism. For instance, they believed in
> slavery, therefore they were not libertarians.
> 
> I think their intent matters some in figuring out how to apply the
> ninth amendment.
> 
> Since they were not full-bore libertarians, it is not persuasive to
> argue that they meant the ninth amendment to generate strictly
> libertarian laws.

my good man, others besides myself have pointed you in the proper direction to
fully resolve the meanings and intents behind the 9th amendment.

from your various exchanges, i have no recourse but to deduce that you are
either wilfully obfuscating the issue or alternateively truly too dense to
comprehend simple english.

on that note then, i can think of no legitimate reason to engage further with
you on this topic. 

good luck to you

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