LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old September 5th 10, 05:26 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,alt.community
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 544
Default SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague

dave wrote:
[...]
What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?




Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central
government to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws"
can possibly be constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The NEW Constitution preamble V2.0 Igor Shortwave 0 January 29th 10 12:17 AM
Why Is Steve Robeson Intentionally Mistruthful and Deceitful? bb Policy 21 March 15th 05 02:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017