[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Nothing like moving the goal posts huh?

So, for the record, you think that the fed should get involved if somthing being used is greatly harming the US.

If, on the other hand, great harm is coming from anything but something consumed, the fed should stay out (unless there's a constitutional mandate).

The fed should step in to stop ex hippies from getting high, but should not step in to stop them from dying of cancer? An interesting position you've got.

One is enforcing the laws of the land- the other is expending money to grant a benefit.

This is apples and oranges. Just like the debate recently on teh jobs bill when the libs attacked Bunning for holding up the legislation.

They decried the conservatives fro being mean spirited and wanting to harm people (which was a lie), but intentionally kept ignoring the fact that it was the Dems that reanacted pay-Go. All Bunning was doing was demandning the dems live up to the law they passed with much flourish.

Herer all the debate centers on is not being mean spirited as you are trying to craft it out to be, but to enforce the constitution. The Federal Govt. has no authority to establish national health care systems and should not be doing so.

There are enormous amounts fo help available outside of federal intrusion to deal with a cancer patient.

[nolidad]

If, on the other hand, great harm is coming from anything but something consumed, the fed should stay out (unless there's a constitutional mandate).

No the govt. has the authority to declare war. They have the authority to help a state with natural disasters (or even man mae disasters) once the state gives approval for the fed to help. There arte others but I think all get teh gist of the agument.

The fed should step in to stop ex hippies from getting high, but should not step in to stop them from dying of cancer? An interesting position you've got.

Irrelevant arguement-- 2 ex hippies smoking a joint is a local matter or state matter. A state refusing to enforce laws requires a federal intervention. Like in Alabam when Wallace refused to let those black students enter an all white school.

[JerryLove]

If something is a proven harm to the citizenry or can create great hardships if used unregulated or uncontrolled and states are unwilling to deal with the issue for the sake of the safety and health of the citizenry- then the fed should get involved somehow.

Originally Posted by nolidad

One is enforcing the laws of the land- the other is expending money to grant a benefit.

What law of the land are you talking about? You didn't mention a single thing like "if there's a law against it".

In fact "unregulated or uncontrolled" implies to me that there are no laws against whatever hypothetical thing you advocate the federal government using unconstitutional authority on.

[snip something about some unrelated jobs bill or such]

Herer all the debate centers on is not being mean spirited as you are trying to craft it out to be, but to enforce the constitution. The Federal Govt. has no authority to establish national health care systems and should not be doing so.

Whether the fed has the constitutional right isn't the point. You said the fed should "get involved somehow" if something "is a proven harm to the citizenry".

You didn't say anything about "if the constitution allows".

No the govt. has the authority to declare war. They have the authority to help a state with natural disasters (or even man mae disasters) once the state gives approval for the fed to help. There arte others but I think all get teh gist of the agument.

I'm not talking about things the fed has constitutional authority for either, as obviously those would certainly be federal perview.

Irrelevant arguement-- 2 ex hippies smoking a joint is a local matter or state matter. A state refusing to enforce laws requires a federal intervention. Like in Alabam when Wallace refused to let those black students enter an all white school.

What constitutional authority allowed that? What violation of constitutional protections was occuring? Please cite the appropriate ammendment to show that the fed didn't overstep its authority.

(BTW: whether you can or cannot is irrellevent to the topic at hand. If it was a protected right, then it's not related to the topic: If it was not a protected right, then it's an example of the hypothetical I've already called you out on).

[nolidad]

What law of the land are you talking about? You didn't mention a single thing like "if there's a law against it".

In fact "unregulated or uncontrolled" implies to me that there are no laws against whatever hypothetical thing you advocate the federal government using unconstitutional authority on.

[snip something about some unrelated jobs bill or such

So my wording wasn't 100% perfect- I think everyone but you knows what I was referring to.

(BTW: whether you can or cannot is irrellevent to the topic at hand. If it was a protected right, then it's not related to the topic: If it was not a protected right, then it's an example of the hypothetical I've already called you out on).

It is not a protected right- it is an inherent right which is above a protected right, though the govt. is sup[posed to protect teh inherent rights (which they haven't all the time).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

So my wording wasn't 100% perfect- I think everyone but you knows what I was referring to.

You were referring to the Federal government acting to stop people within states from using drugs you don't approve of even though there's absolutely no allowance for such action in the Constitution.

You decided to frame it in a way that made it sound reasonable: but are miffed by the fact that any resonably justification for the FBI or DEA can also be applied to UHC.

It is not a protected right- it is an inherent right which is above a protected right, though the govt. is sup[posed to protect teh inherent rights (which they haven't all the time).

Could you perhaps list those? I'm not familiar with the "inherent right to attend a given institution", nor how it's more relevent than an "inherent right to not die for lack of medical care". Where can I find these "inherent rights"?

Also: what happened to all your rhetoric about how the fed should be restricted by the constitution? You seem to be throwing that out the door here.