Sell me on your candidate.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not really saying that. All I'm saying is that constitutionally, it's a legal power of the federal government, and I believe that legalization is contrary to the best interests of the US.

It's like the military. Sure, it's going to be a net loss to the budget, but unlike many other things, it's actually constitutional. Cut the unconstutional agencies (like education), and then we'll talk about Customs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it's not. Legally the standard at present is set at birth, and yes, it's in the 14th amendment, and yes, it's a power of the federal government, via the privileges and immunities. I suggest you take the time to look up the clause before arguing that it's subjective. No, it's a very clear and objective standard.

The argument is over which objective standard should be used, conception or birth. Prolifers argue for conception, pro abortion people argue for birth.

When we can't even agree on how to apply the words objective and subjective, I despair of us having a useful conversation, but I'm willing to still try for now.  Conception and birth as the starting point of life are both subjective standards for which we can objectively measure whether they have been met.  However, that does not make them objective standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roe is terrible law. There is no constitutional basis for a trimester framework to personhood.
[/quote]

There is almost no constitutional basis to personhood anywhere in the constitution.  There is a bare minimum of being born, but more expansive definitions are not prohibited therein.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, if Roe could establish abortion, then the removal of Roe would not entail a constitutional amendment. I am in favor of establishing a constitutional basis for personhood of the unborn, but removing Roe would be the first step towards this.
[/quote]

Quite the reverse if anything.  If there is anything in the 14th Amendment that establishes when personhood begins, as opposed to citizenship, then it would be that personhood begins at birth the same as citizenship.  However, the 14th is mostly silent on the issue of personhood.  While a citizen must be a person which implies that personhood begins at birth or earlier, not all people are citizens.

As for whether a reversal of Roe would lead to a constitutional amendment on abortion, I think it is extremely doubtful.  I don't see how either a pro-choice or a pro-life amendment would be able to pass the 38 state hurdle.  Plus if Roe is reversed, that will energize the pro-choice side politically, possibly even to the point where an amendment affirming a right to abortion could pass Congress, but not enough to get the three-quarters of states

[Wisconsin+17]

my reply got ate. *sigh*.

GO READ THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE. Thank you. Then we can continue discussion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

my reply got ate. *sigh*.

GO READ THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE. Thank you. Then we can continue discussion.

Neither Article IV Section 2 nor Amendment XIV Section 1 are applicable to the unborn.  They aren't citizens under the 14th Amendment, but that gives no constitutional guidance as to whether they are people entitled to due process and equal protection under the laws.

That leaves it up to either the common law or to State law.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but the point of this is that the Federal Government sets the criterion for citizenship, not the states. Thus, anything that excludes one class of people from citizenship cannot be decided by the states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It sets the jurisdiction to the Feds, not the states and is an enumerated power. Legal recognition of the unborn can only come from the feds, and rejection of legal recognition can only come from the feds, not the states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By what enumerated power does the Federal government have the sole power to set the definition of personhood in your opinion?  Personhood and citizenship are not synonymous.

[America First]

Then you concede an important point that the government has a constitutional ability to regulate the distribution.

It's not an important point at all.  The government has a constitutional ability to ban water and table salt.  That doesn't mean they should do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Circular logic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They have the constitutional ability to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean they should.  I like water.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By your flawed logic, the constitution then favors banning water.  My argument is that the government has the power to do so but should make the choice not to for pragmatic purposes, such as crime reduction, saving money, and (although I'm not arguing this cause it's more philosophical) personal freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never engaged you in the argument over that point, so don't act like you've won anything.  The Drug War may be permitted by the Constitution, but it's not in our best interest.  That has been my position from the beginning, and you keep trying to deflect away from that.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 14th explicitly says that all born persons are considered citizens. The feds reserve this power to themselves in the 14th to overturn laws on slavery imposed by the states. If the states had control, then they could have maintained slavery laws per Dred Scott.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And drugs are necessary to live?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Drugs have no explicit purpose other than getting high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Terrible argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't take away my tokes, bra!

Pragmatic = it's not in your perceived best interest. Not really convincing me here. If you believe that drugs are necessary for you to live, then you're making my case for me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well then, you can't claim to have address my argument in any meaningful fashion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have. You've conceded that the feds have the constitutional ability to regulate drugs. Now you've made the argument that it isn't in their best interest to do so. That's a huge concession.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so?

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if something isn't necessary to live, our government response should be to ban it and waste all our tax dollars enforcing it and propping up gangs by doing so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's your point?  A lot of things only have entertainment value, some of them dangerous.  However, persisting to use the same failed big govenrnmnt solutions to these things isn't the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anytime someone says "terrible argument", it usually means they have no counterargument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pragmatic = it's not in the country's best interest.  The country would be better without a Drug War than with one.  Even if drugs were the worst thing ever, Prohibition hasn't stopped them from being used, and it also wastes money basically swinging at windmills, at the same time leading to way more organized crime.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the government can ban anything that isn't necessary to live?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, arguing that drugs are like water is false analogy. Ergo your comparison between the two is not valid. Two, drugs have a profound negative effect on the user, and on society in general from the standpoint of addiction. Water is a necessity of life.

Two, I think the government has an obligation to regulate the distribution of drugs, and to ban substances that are harmful to the people as a whole.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point being that society uses plenty of resources to help get people off of substance addictions, and that this money is money that you need to include in your estimate of the cost to society. Is it worth it to get your 'entertainment', if it means an extended seclusion in a detox ward?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that society doesn't have an interest in preventing the sale of these substances to minors? I know drug pushers and yes they try to sell or give away to children when they can. Future customers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If everyone were a user would the country be better off?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Has the government ban reduced the number of people on or the number of people selling drugs?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WRT importation? I don't think it makes a difference. Within an individual state, is one matter. I don't think the US can control the distribution of stuff within a state. But anything that comes into the country is fair game.  

[Wisconsin+17]

NC Yankee - How far back do you want to go? Back to the days before the FDA?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 14th explicitly says that all born persons are considered citizens. The feds reserve this power to themselves in the 14th to overturn laws on slavery imposed by the states. If the states had control, then they could have maintained slavery laws per Dred Scott.

Actually the 13th prohibits slavery, so the 14th had nothing to do with that.  It also has nothing to do with whether the unborn are people.  I find your constitutional arguments on this and other matters to be incoherent nonsense, and I will waste no more time on them.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

It's a power that is reserved to the federal government, not the states. The 10th does not apply in this case.