“Constitutionalists” never mention the missing Drug Prohibition Amendment. Something the Republicans who voted against the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act noticed.
Constitutionalism
by
Tags:
“Constitutionalists” never mention the missing Drug Prohibition Amendment. Something the Republicans who voted against the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act noticed.
by
Tags:
Comments
7 responses to “Constitutionalism”
Jerry Pournelle has been saying that for years.
I never ran across Jerry saying that. I’ll have to see if I can find it.
You will be amused by this:
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/07/the-fytw-clause/#comment-116442
Top of the first page for this search – Jerry Pournelle drug prohibition constitution
My biggest disappointment with Scalia was his opinion in Rausch.
He joined in on a Commerce Clause argument.
Good old thread. To answer Hannity:
There was a 5 second pause, and Hannity responds in a coldly furious voice,
“How much pot have YOU smoked today?”
Quite a bit.So there.
Would we be better off with a drug prohibition amendment? Considering how well the original worked. The policy is a disaster either way, constitutional or not. The only real advantage to an amendment is that it can be definitively repealed. For all the good that did. Once you open the constitution up to banning activities and substances which offend some faction anything goes. How about an amendment to ban gay sex? Incandescent light bulbs? Sugar? Offensive internet posts? Cruz thinks there’s no right to stimulate one’s genitals,why not formalize that with an amendment? Hell, let’s just repeal the entire damn constitution with an amendment and get it over with.
Man Mountain Molehill,
Absolutely correct. Except in the current situation no Drug Prohibition Amendment has a chance in hell of passing.
That means the Drug War is over when some one makes an issue of the “missing amendment”. Who might that be? Who might it be?