U.S. v. Kalash - Drug Law Constitutionality and Other Unconventional Defenses

[Kalash]

My birthday is may 4th and I shall use my birthday wish for you and your trial.(Yeah I'm a worthless idiot sorry). My birth seems so insignificant compared to your cause *sigh*. YOU FUCKING ROCK THUMBS UP

Thanks Kibels.
You should keep your birthday wish though...
Or at least focus it a little more tightly.
I'm not having a trial - the plea agreement waived that already.

At sentencing, all I want is for bail on appeal - basically, I stay out of prison until the appellate process is over.
And - without your birth - and the birth of the rest of the people here, and throughout the world - I wouldn't have a reason to keep fighting.
So - thanks for the support, and I'll do what I can to regain our freedoms for all of us

 

[Tr1p]

Yo man, check out Robinson v California.

Say they were for yourself and you were addicted and you good nigga.

 

[Kalash]

I'm pretty sure this wasn't here before - I would have responded to it...

The people and their representatives ratified and approved the US Constitution. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The US Constitution further gives Congress the power to enact all laws necessary and proper to regulating interstate commerce.

Right...

Therefore the US Congress has the power to regulate property rights (and obviously the way you might acquire or dispose of property) so long as such regulation is substantially connected to interstate commerce.

No. You're still missing the point that congressional powers cannot exceed the rights of the people...
Even if the people willingly try to give Congress a power that exceeds their rights.
Controlling your neighbor's property without their consent remains outside your rights - and outside Congressional authority, despite the empowerment of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Schick v. U.S. forbids the exercise of any Governmental power (to regulate interstate commerce) from violating the rights of the people (property rights protected by the 5th amendments) established in the Amendments (though this ruling could circumvent the 9th Amendment if taken 100% literally - as it claims the rights of the people are enumerated within the Amendments themselves...)

Trade in drugs affects interstate commerce; therefore regulation of the drug trade is within the power of Congress, as granted by the US Constitution, as approved by the people.

And they can do so within the restraints of the Amendments... and it is here that the CSA collapses as an Unconstitutional exercise of legislative powers (aside from this being an obvious attempt of Congress to seize "police powers" inherent and held by the states through use of the Interstate Commerce Clause).
Yes, they can regulate commerce - so long as they (Congress) do not violate any rights of the people protected by the Amendments.
Seizing property and controlling it, without consent of its owner, without just compensation for depriving the owner its use or benefit of ownership, and without due process of law by which the rights to the property are lost are all things Congress is prohibited from doing.

Unfortunately there is no recognized fundamental right of property that places it beyond the ability of government to regulate. The ability of the federal government to regulate property in the course of regulating interstate is, however, well recognized.

And when this regulation amounts to deprivation without due process or just compensation?

Well, what do you think of what I said above?

I still don't buy it.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...itations-on-government-regulation-of-property

NSFW:

The United States probably has the most developed law on this topic because the enforcement of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that protect property interests from governmental interference has long been committed to the courts. In the United States two competing and overlapping theories are employed to distinguish “takings,” which must be compensated, from “regulations,” for which compensation need not be paid: (1) Where a governmental body invades the possessory interest of the landowner, compensation must be paid. There are exceptions to this principle, as, for example, in cases where the invasion of the possessory interest is for a short period and justifiable on grounds of protecting public health or safety or where it is unintentional, but the fact that a governmental body has invaded a landowner’s possessory interest is a good predictor that a court will require that compensation be paid. (2) Where the government has not invaded a possessory interest of the landowner but has regulated his use of his property in such a way that no viable use of the property remains, compensation will frequently be required. This principle is considerably more controversial than the first, but it has been followed often enough that it too is a good predictor of judicial decisions.

In either situation, the 5th amendment protections on property hold; no due process nor just compensation, no ability to control or deny possession of the property in question.

I think the judge is right. Indeed, the Constitution limits the government from actually taking your property only insofar as the government must provide due compensation and must do so for a lawful purpose.

Then we still have an issue at hand...
When someone is arrested for "possessing" an allegedly "controlled" substance, and this property is seized by "lawful force" - they are not compensated, but criminalized for having possessed their property...
You have the "lawful purpose" (regulating interstate commerce) but where is the just compensation? Imprisonment?

Governmental control of this property is still in question - where does this right come from? Regulation of interstate commerce does not grant government the ability nor right to control all property in commerce - only the commerce itself.
If this "control" over property entering into Interstate Commerce were to be total and absolute, as you and the judge contend, any property entering interstate commerce (which includes property you make and personally use under Reich) would belong absolutely to the state.
All rights of ownership would be dissolved as soon as any property entered interstate commerce.

Why not start preparing for what time will be like while in prison? Consider career options following your time, and consider what you can do while in prison to further those options. If you find this appeal pleasurable to work on, then by all means, continue to do so. I'd simply be careful about elevating it to the level of a grand, self-immolating crusade.

It's prison. What is there to do to get ready? New clothes? Notebooks? Pens, pencils, and a new backpack?
Sure - career options and all that... I plan on spending a lot of time in the prison's library. If there are career opportunities, I'll gladly take them.
It's my understanding that federal educational aide for prisoners no longer exists, and I don't have money saved somewhere to spend on college courses while in prison... And I have an associate's degree... the highest level available inside prison.
I'm pretty screwed in this area - I'm "too educated" to qualify for any continuing educational programs in prison. Ironic? Yeah... Probably. But that's the way it is 8)
As far as a self-immolating crusade... You're right. I shouldn't kill myself
The plea is already on the table. The prosecutor's recommendation is already filed.
At sentencing, there is little to nothing for me to do.
Any injury I cause to myself will be insignificant.

At the appellate level, sentencing will have already been conducted. It will do me no harm to fight this as long and hard as I am able.
Post-sentencing, this path will no longer be self-destructive. Futile, maybe, but not self-destructive.

The government, whether in the guise of the local government or the federal government, has been regulating property rights since property and government first existed. It has always been thus in this country, and in every country. I don't view this as a bad thing, since there ARE limitations on how government may seize property. But those limitations aren't applicable in your case.

But why not? If these limitations assert that the property rights of the people are beyond governmental revocation and criminalization, why are they not applicable to property Government has converted into something "other than property" which is not subject to these limitations?
Where is the authority to avoid these limitations coming from?

Oh. Can government buy and sell you? Determine what you read and what you say? No? Then you're not a slave.

In a superficial sense, no, I'm not a slave - as I am considered slightly more than mere property...
But apparently my labor, time, and energy belong to Government, and they can buy and sell those.
As for what I read and say, absolutely yes they can.
You forget that I am not "free by right" at this time, but "free via governmental consent (bail)."
Why did they consent to allow me to read and speak at this time? I don't know - but I have no "right" to do these things, and at any moment, government may revoke these privileges.

Now - the other consideration here is that my labor, time, and energy are aspects of myself. If I use my labor, time, and energy to produce or acquire property, this ability to own property without consent nor permission from a higher source of authority makes me independent - takes away the label of slavery.
If these things are controlled by government (capable of governmental sales/regulation without compensation to myself), I am, by extension, a slave - regardless if my physical body is considered part of the bargain or not.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow any of this. Your analogy seems to assume that selling illegal drugs is the equivalent, in some sense, of going to a bank. Both are economic activities, I suppose, but the analogy ends there.

Then how is selling drugs different from selling apples? The analogy is identical, the only difference is in Governmental preference for apples and detestation of drugs...
"illegal" is a modifier that I am questioning; what makes a drug illegal?
A legislative order commanding that "property belonging to category X" not be possessed nor sold without first acquiring a license issued by the legislative authority?
If this is the definition of the modifier "illegal" - as it is in this case - what is the source of authority to "control" that which government would criminalize the possession of?

The analogy though - is that commerce involving drugs is no different from a bank transaction.
Criminal commerce involving drugs (through use of violence, intimidation, coercion, etc) is no different from robbing a bank.

Using a bank - via consent of the bank - is not criminal...
Buying/selling drugs - via consent of the seller/buyer - is not criminal...
Introducing coercive violence or threats makes such activities illegal - both using a bank and selling/using drugs.
The difference is that in a bank robbery, the robber is arrested.
With drugs, "everyone in the bank" is arrested - coercively violent or not.

But then - this is with a humane and specific definition of "crime." If disobedience of Government is a "crime" then of course, all the people using drugs should be arrested for committing the "crime" of disobeying direct orders from their servant - the State...

In my case, Government is the entity introducing violence in effort to coerce me (and the rest of the nation) into not engaging in commerce. What did the U.S. code say in Title 18 Chapter 1951 again?

Yes, government can prohibit the possession of certain types of property. For example, the government prohibits you from possessing a nuclear weapon. Does this portend an end to property? Of course not. Neither does the prohibition of possession of certain drugs.

Ah. Just like the judge. But you left of "dangerous chemicals" and "child pornography".
I've been down this path - and there's a really long explanation in a thread somewhere (I think in CEP)...
Nuclear weapons - the mere possession (with knowledge of your neighbors) amounts to coercion. Unsafe storage - or any use of the weapon per its intended construction - would infringe upon the rights of many.
"Dangerous Chemicals" are not inherently criminal to possess (or, legally, they cannot be) so long as they are stored properly (eliminating the risk to those not personally possessing the chemicals in question). Regulation on these items cannot amount to exclusion from possession, but assurance of safety for those not possessing it in the vicinity of the chemicals.
Child pornography - possession cannot (legally) be criminalized, as the possession of property CANNOT be a crime. The issue at hand here is not whether child pornography is legal, moral, or otherwise... The issue at hand is personal possession of one's property. Now - the possession of evidence of a crime is another matter, and child exploitation is a crime. The possession of child pornography is not, itself, criminal, but it is evidence of actual crime, and withholding the pornography leads to child endangerment/obstruction of justice.
Either way, Governmental controls necessary for the continued safety of the population exist for all these items.
Drugs are different. They are just property.
Their mere existence does not threaten those in the surrounding area.
Their possession does not amount to coercion nor violations of the safety of those around you, and improper storage of drugs does not amount to a health or safety problem. (Creation of certain drugs is another thing entirely, but that falls back to "dangerous chemicals" not drugs themselves)
Their possession is not evidence of another crime.

These claims only justify the criminal acts of government, they are not a rational basis to abandon the rule of law in favor of Totalitarian Control by Government.

So you want to argue that MDMA is wrongly scheduled? Okay. I frankly have no idea whether it is or is not. Even if true, I frankly don't think this obviates the responsibility of the person who chose to distribute MDMA.

What responsibility? There again is that question...
I am responsible to the "victims" of my actions - but there are none. Disobedience of government bears no responsibility.
That said, assuming MDMA was placed into Schedule III - as Judge Young determined was the HIGHEST schedule it could be LEGALLY placed into, my actions would, indeed, still be criminal.
The scale of criminality is completely different however, as I would not be charged with a felony - only a federal misdemeanor. When the nature of the allegations changes so greatly (bearing in mind we're talking thousands of pills being nothing more than a misdemeanor) because of improper placement in the schedule, there is cause for argument.
This remains irrelevant, however, as Government's ability to "control drugs" is still in question. The CSA simply calls the items it claims to schedule as "controlled" yet it cites no authority for this control.
What is this authority? And if the Interstate Commerce Clause is the only source of authority, it must yield to the 5th Amendment protections on personal property, making it invalid law.
The true source of authority, however, will most likely be cited as the treaty signed from the Single Convention on Narcotics.
Hopefully, I'll have my case added to this site;
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm
Now - as for the question at hand, can the president sign a treaty allowing for the "regulation" of property to the exclusion of ownership rights without adhering to the 5th Amendment limitations on Governmental powers?

Individual sovereignty (individual rights of the American people) cannot be given up by the president nor senate.
Property rights (including possession and use) should fall under the category of things that are not a "proper subject of regulation."

I'm fine with acts of civil disobedience, but I don't think your actions fall under the rubric of civil obedience. If you disagree with the law, you have means available to lawfully petition and campaign for a change in that law.

With MDMA, the right to appeal the scheduling still exists - but again you miss the point, if the law exceeds the Constitutional Authority of Government, it is invalid law.
You cannot break an invalid law. It doesn't exist. Petitioning Government (the criminal agency in this case, exceeding its legitimate authority) for redress from its criminal activities is futile.
When has any criminal relinquished power to its victims voluntarily - as long as it retains the upper hand in the situation?

You also, legally, need to argue more than simply that MDMA is scheduled improperly. You need to say whether and why the wrongful scheduling of MDMA means that your conviction or sentence is no longer valid.

Erm... covered above...

The judge was explaining why Congress has the power under the Constitution to regulate drugs (they substantially affect interstate commerce). Congress chose to do so here, in part, by using criminal law.

No - they used regulatory statutes with criminal penalties.

You broke that law, in the jurisdiction of the United States. That's all the government needs to prosecute you. This isn't a civil lawsuit, and questions of standing really aren't relevant here.

That's something we disagree on. Legislative fiat (particularly when it infringes upon rights and liberties of the people) is not LAW which is capable of being broken.
A crime still requires "rights" being violated. Congress has no "right" to be obeyed. Unless another tangible right is adversely affected by the unlawful activity, no standing exists, and no crime has been committed.

By the realities of the crime, I mean the following: you knew that what you were doing was illegal, and you did it anyway; you did not do so out of a moral outrage against the law, or in an effort to change the law, but simply to make money;

I'm with you so far...

the illegal drug trade contributes to huge amounts of violence and misery in this country; you were a part of the illegal drug trade.

Absolutely not.
Prohibition contributes to huge amounts ov violence and misery in this country (and around the world).
It is not the trade in drugs that is dangerous, nor the trade in drugs that contributes to violence; it is the position of Government that "drugs cannot exist" and their initiation of violent force against otherwise peaceful people to eliminate the existence of drugs that is the source of this violence.
If government were to equally protect property interests regardless of the majority's moral perspective as to the use of that property, there would be no more violence in the distribution of drugs than there is the distribution of apples or oranges.
I was part of the underground drug trade in defiance of the violent criminal claims of Government that all drugs, regardless of ownership, are fully subject to Governmental control.

If you disagree with the drug laws, that's fine. I disagree with a lot of it too. But don't confuse that disagreement with the consequences of your acts given that drug laws are still on the books, and given that the trade in them still has some pretty horrific consequences.

Check out http://leap.cc - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
It is apparent that the violence associated with the drug trade is not due to the trade in drugs, but the black market established and maintained by Governmental policy and use of violent force.
So we once again come back to "crime" and what it is/means...
Title 18 of the U.S. code defines "crimes" - drugs are in Title 21 (food and drug regulations).
Title 18 Chapter 95 Section 1951 prohibits anyone from using violence, or threats of violence, to dissuade or disable anyone from engaging in commerce... or to prevent the movement of any commodity in commerce.
Title 21 Chapter 13 Section 841 describes violence to be carried out against anyone attempting to move a commodity in commerce (or even the possession of such a commodity, regardless of intent under section 844).

Where is the CRIME?
Is Government above the law?
Can the President sign a treaty committing a CRIME against the people of the nation?
Knowing that the powers vested in the President (as well as the rest of Government) are derived from The People - as rights are inherent in the people - how can any agent of government be given the power to violate the rights (through signing a bill or treaty) of the people?
If any treaty can be signed eliminating the rights protected by the Amendments, what good are the Amendments and the Constitution?
If the Constitution is meaningless, what is Government's source of authority? Is Government itself even valid?

 

[Heuristic]

No. You're still missing the point that congressional powers cannot exceed the rights of the people...
Even if the people willingly try to give Congress a power that exceeds their rights.
Controlling your neighbor's property without their consent remains outside your rights - and outside Congressional authority, despite the empowerment of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Schick v. U.S. forbids the exercise of any Governmental power (to regulate interstate commerce) from violating the rights of the people (property rights protected by the 5th amendments) established in the Amendments (though this ruling could circumvent the 9th Amendment if taken 100% literally - as it claims the rights of the people are enumerated within the Amendments themselves...)

You do not have an absolute right to possess something simply because you created it, much less because you purchased it from someone else who created it. Such a right is not recognized anywhere in law. Indeed, you stated your own belief that there were certain limits to own that which you created, or purchased from another who created it, e.g. nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc. You gave your own justifications for such limitations on property ownership: but the only legal justification a government needs to regulate property, including the prohibition of owning certain types of property, is easily had and very broad: the public interest (and some additional elements, in the case of Congress and the interstate commerce clause).

Now, perhaps you're right that this affords government too much power. If so, then we should change the law. But as it currently stands, that's the law. And it's been that way for a very, very long time.

The 5th Amendment protects you against seizure of property which you lawfully possess. Did you lawfully possess the substances in question? If not, no compensation is due.

That pretty much ends the constitutional argument, as far as I can tell.

We can certainly have a discussion about property rights, in a moral context, if you'd like. But legally, it's simply not there.

Now, whether you'd have some type of appeal based on an error in the scheduling of the substance, I don't know.

Regarding prison and education... I don't know what the options are--and it sounds like you may not know what the options are in full either. It's certainly something worth investigating. I can "hear" a tone of defeat in your post when you talk about prison, and I suppose my concern here is that you're letting yourself become so focused on this legal appeal that you're shielding yourself from fully facing, and allowing yourself to adapt to, the reality of a term in prison, and your life ahead.

You need to realize that prison is not the end of the road. It will make some things more difficult. But you will have opportunities, and you will adjust. It is important though that you take time now to start investigating those opportunities, and to try to fit things together for yourself. Having FACTS at your disposal will enable you to build a plan going forward, and THAT will enable you to keep a sense of hope and optimism.

Regarding drug violence and prohibition... yes, if there were no prohibition, there would be much less violence associated with the trafficking and sale of drugs. But there is prohibition. And so the sale and trafficking of drugs does contribute to violence, and misery, in a multitude of ways.

 

[Kalash]

You do not have an absolute right to possess something simply because you created it, much less because you purchased it from someone else who created it. Such a right is not recognized anywhere in law.

I'm less interested in rights recognized by law than rights secured by the Constitution...
I'm still not convinced that the Constitution "grants" any right. It may grant "legal recognition" of a right, but this "legal recognition" by the state must also constrain the state from engaging in any activity which would violate such a right.
Property - which we are discussing - is something of which NO ONE can be deprived, for ANY reason, except by due process or just compensation. Possession of property CANNOT be the grounds for the deprivation of the property - as the mere taking of the property as "evidence" of the crime of possession is deprivation prior to due process, without just cause, let alone compensation.

Your contention is equal to that of the U.N.'s proclamation of "human rights" which is a Façade Constitution - one which claims the state will "recognize these rights" except for "compelling reasons of the state" - a clause which renders all "human rights" allegedly recognized by the U.N. entirely invalid and worthless.
The issue here is that there is no limitation of the State's ability to "create compelling reasons" nor to have these "compelling reasons" held in check by anything.

America has no such "compelling interest" clause, and cannot operate LAWFULLY as though it does. No "compelling interest" of "The United States" can serve as a means of dismantling the protections of the Amendments.

Without this "compelling reason" clause in the Constitution itself, no clause can be interpreted through manipulation of the language, nor proclamation by any government agency - as all agencies must adhere to the "rule of law" which the Constitution is...
To create a "compelling reason" for the abrogation of any right protected by the Constitution is to dismantle the Constitution itself - rendering it, and all powers derived from its provisions, invalid.

Show me where this "compelling state interest" clause exists anywhere in the text of the Constitution and I'll yield.
Until then I remain unconvinced.

Indeed, you stated your own belief that there were certain limits to own that which you created, or purchased from another who created it, e.g. nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc.

No - I didn't.
The limits are not on the ownership of property - only on their improper storage/use which threatens the safety of others without their consent.
The THREAT is the crime, not the possession of the property - and this "THREAT" is not a tangible thing for which standing may be acquired by any civil party.
If a hypothetical injury or harm cannot raise standing for a civil case, how can it be the basis for a criminal case?
If, on the other hand, such injury or harm DOES exist, a civil case - and the requisite due process - can be used to deny the owner of their property.
This due process requirement cannot be bypassed by Congressional mandate.


There can be NO LEGAL LIMIT to the rights of property other than those prescribed in Budd...

NSFW:

That property which a man has honestly acquired he
retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall
not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must
use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public
use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that
whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon
payment of due compensation.BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF
NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The problem here is that you justify the criminality of my act by relying upon law that I question the validity of.
The law must stand by itself if it is to be upheld.
At the point of enactment, no control over the property rights of the people existed.
At the point of enactment, no lawful control existed by which the property of the people could be taken, nor use denied the owners of the property.
Denying one the use of their property is deprivation of that property - and is prohibited from Governmental acts by the 5th Amendment.

Lawful acquisition of property at the time the law was created did not prevent those currently in possession of property from being prosecuted.
Neither, prior to the law, was the engagement in the exercise of this "right to property" subject to the approval (and licensing) by the state...
Which clearly places the CSA into the "Unconstitutional Licensing Law" category...

You cannot claim that "honestly acquired" means "lawfully acquired" when the law is the thing being questioned.
If the law is invalid - or not sustainable as fact in point - what is "honest acquisition" of property?
Under your position, honest and lawful acquisition of property amount to the same thing... And without any constraints upon the legislature, ANY property can be LAWFULLY TAKEN without due process nor compensation by simply making it "illegal" to possess that property, regardless of ownership.
This "lawful" acquisition of property is "honest" acquisition if your reasoning is to be followed - and it is clear that there is nothing honest about a collective overpowering an individual and depriving him of his property he believed he "owned" as he had worked for, acquired, and cared for that property through mutual consent of its previous owners.

If creating something implies no rights to the thing, how can one apply for a patent?
Creation of something DOES create a lawful ownership of that thing. Without having first created the thing in question, no patent can be applied for nor attained.
A patent not only secures rights to the thing created, but to all similar creations, and allows for limited control over other items created by others that are not intended for personal use. This limited control does not allow for the criminalization of another party replicating and producing the product for their own use, it only prohibits replication by a 3rd party (without permission from the patent holder) for monetary gain.
With MDMA, no patent exists granting any party "control" over the creation/reproduction of MDMA for any reason. If one "honestly acquires" through consent of the owners, the materials necessary for the creation of MDMA, no CONTROLLING PARTY with a patent can exist denying him the product of his time, labor, and resources.
No claim to control property one does not OWN can exist without a patent securing "rights of ownership" to something that has yet to be produced or is produced by someone else.
Without a patent, something created is owned by its creator (and all rights associated with ownership are held to exist with him).

If creation does not imply rights of ownership, does a person building a house not own the house?
If you create something - and do not "own" it - who is it that "owns" and has rights to the labor which was used in the production of the item?

If ownership is only derived from "the law" then all "the law" - being Government - must do to deprive anyone of "their property" - is to make a law against its ownership - rendering the 5th Amendment useless.
"The court is to protect against any encroachment of
Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. United States, U.S.
Supreme Court,[116 U.S. 616,(1886).]
Honest acquisition and Lawful acquisition are not one and the same by my reasoning - as lawful acts are not always honest, and honest acts are not always lawful.

I know what you're saying - and the laws do not recognize any property rights.
That's not a fact in dispute.
The argument being raised is a question of Constitutional law - CAN, under their enumerated powers, Government exercise a power that exceeds the rights of the people themselves - even to the point where a right protected by Amendment can be undone - as denial of use/possession is deprivation of property - without due process, nor just compensation?

Schick v. U.S. states that they cannot.
Common sense dictates that they cannot.
The derivation of governmental power from the inherent rights of the people mandates that the privileges Government derives from those rights must be inferior to those rights.
The 9th amendment secures non-enumerated rights to the people... So the claim that "possession of property you've created" is not a right recognized "by law" is irrelevant, as The Constitution IS law, and as property is both enumerated in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments - as well as the unenumerated protections afforded by the 9th, property rights MUST be acknowledged by any agency of the United States Government, and the courts have upheld this perpetually until the last decade - when Government began claiming that "things in commerce" are not "property" to which one pay acquire any rights.

If the law applies equally to all property, by natural order, a person taking time to refine or better raw materials and convert them into something of higher value is the rightful owner with all rights to control that which they have created.
The claim that "property" can be subject to special control by a non-creating party that has not acquired the RIGHTS to the property in a lawful manner is invalid and a criminal deprivation of property to the victim which created the property in question.
This is criminal racketeering, and I believe you'll find it to be an unlawful deprivation of property - both in the 4th and 5th amendment sense... Backed by federal statutes - Title 18 chapter 13 sections 241, 242, and chapter 95, section 1951.
Unless violations by government officials of these laws somehow does not amount to an "unlawful act" then the deprivation of property for merely possessing that property without consent of Government cannot be a "lawful deprivation" of property.

You gave your own justifications for such limitations on property ownership: but the only legal justification a government needs to regulate property, including the prohibition of owning certain types of property, is easily had and very broad: the public interest (and some additional elements, in the case of Congress and the interstate commerce clause).

Under a totalitarian government, they need not even establish that.
Under the Constitution, more is required before government can exert control over property belonging to anyone that does not wish to relinquish ownership rights, which include the rights to control that property and possess it.

Now, perhaps you're right that this affords government too much power. If so, then we should change the law. But as it currently stands, that's the law. And it's been that way for a very, very long time.

It's been that way less than 100 years.
Prior to the New Deal, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the Supreme court changing its mind about Contract Rights being "rights" and determining instead that they are "privileges" to be controlled by Government - a higher authority issuing privileges of property, contract, religious freedom, liberal media, and public trials... things which, as originating from Government - the sole "source of authority" for all things - are capable of being taken away by Governmental whim.

It isn't that "the law" affords Government too much power - it's that Government no longer recognizes the Constitution as "the law" - and believes that Government itself IS law... that legislative acts are the Word of Law, and unquestionable - as no "right" exists which government did not issue/originate from the beginning, and no right, therefore, is not subject to complete governmental control.

The 5th Amendment protects you against seizure of property which you lawfully possess. Did you lawfully possess the substances in question? If not, no compensation is due.

4th. And it protects from unreasonable seizures... Certainly any unlawful seizure would be unreasonable... But the point in fact here is that this is not a "grant of right" but clearly a prohibition on Government...

It does not protect "Lawful ownership" as there is no "right" to something that is "lawful" - lawful grants are privileges, not rights, and are not subject to the same limitations as the rights secured in the Constitution.
Aside - my claim against Reich

NSFW:

There is no "right" to medical marijuana, as the very claim that it is "medical" and "requires a license" precludes the thing in question from being a "right" as all "licensed" things are privileges subject to the controls by the "lawful owner" of the thing in question which controls it "by right." Medical care cannot be "owned" - and while certain procedures and equipment may be patented, beyond this limited protection through patent law (against reproduction for monetary gain without PERMISSION/LICENSE by the owner of the patent - the CREATOR that has ALL RIGHTS to the thing in question because they created it, and no other reason - SECURED by the issuance of a patent, not CREATED by obtaining the patent...), no other claim to monopolize these things can exist lawfully.

The Constitution, being The Law above all other laws, cannot allow for Government to take property in violation of itself, nor any subordinate law created by the legislature because of the "equal protection" clause prohibiting both Government and Government's Agents from violating any law.
The 5th Amendment protects ALL persons from having ALL property taken from them (denied use/possession/etc) without either due process of law or just compensation.
Legislative fiat is not such due process, and any attempt by Government to deprive anyone of their property via "lawful seizure" when the only crime is the possession of that property (to the detriment of no-one) is NOT a reasonable seizure, as no "probable cause" for the seizure exists.

Touching on our nuclear weapons again - probable cause can exist, via legitimate complaint by an injured party (perceived injury or actual) - and the seizure and subsequent due process can both take place and determine the ability of the owner to possess their property.

That pretty much ends the constitutional argument, as far as I can tell.

If you misconstrue the language of the Constitution so that it reads "lawful" ownership" rather than "unreasonable (lawful) seizure" it does, but there is no protection of "lawful ownership" as such a thing is not questioned by the Constitution, but held to be "self-evident" in any "honest acquisition" of property.
Creation of, or honest acquisition (by consent of the preceding owner) of property is all that is required to obtain full rights of ownership, and no law may diminish nor alter these rights.

Your claim is that "legislative mandate" may serve as grounds for both lawful deprivation of property, seizures of property, and the criminalization of the exercise of one's inherent property rights via a licensing statute.

Before all other law, the Constitution existed.
How can "lawful ownership" exist when there are no LAWS which one may apply to the situation at the time?
If all "ownership" under the constitution requires LAW permitting/licensing that ownership to the people, no property rights exist at all - and the Constitution makes a mockery of property, liberty, and rights.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Miller v. U.S., and "Miranda"

NSFW:

"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can
engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S.
Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot
be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at
489

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them."
Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

We can certainly have a discussion about property rights, in a moral context, if you'd like. But legally, it's simply not there.

I still don't get your "legal" claims... Habitual practice of Government does not make their actions "legal."
The laws were created after - and are subject to the limitations of - the Constitution.
In order for your arguments to legally be valid, it seems that no property could have existed prior to the creation of the laws, and the Constitution neither granted nor secured any rights of property to anything, because there were no LAWS granting permission for property to exist, nor control its existence through licensing statutes.

If a "right" to property cannot exist without "legal recognition" through "issuance of a license" - 1st there are no property rights, and 2nd there is no purpose in protecting "property rights" in the Constitution, as no "lawful property" exists yet... What's the point in protecting something that "doesn't yet exist"?
And how can this protection be against the historical grievances the Declaration of Independence was written to correct when clearly - as the God-King, absolute Sovereign and Owner of All Things By Right of God - could not violate any "right" that he had licensed to the people, as all such "rights" were but mere privileged grants under his authority to give and revoke such privileges?

Now, whether you'd have some type of appeal based on an error in the scheduling of the substance, I don't know.

That one's tricky.
Can government rely upon false science to come to a conclusion - and after the science is retracted for blatant errors and invalidity, continue to rely upon the conclusions based on that false science?
If so - and the District court contends that they can - I have no appeal based on the scheduling nor the sentencing guidelines (which are advisory only, and therefore not subject to appeal anyway...)

Reason dictates that I must - and that I do.
"The Law" being immutable (unless it wills it), ineffable (in both senses; prohibition as well as complexity), and unquestionable (effectively, anyway), obviously has different ideas about these things...

Regarding prison and education... I don't know what the options are--and it sounds like you may not know what the options are in full either. It's certainly something worth investigating. I can "hear" a tone of defeat in your post when you talk about prison, and I suppose my concern here is that you're letting yourself become so focused on this legal appeal that you're shielding yourself from fully facing, and allowing yourself to adapt to, the reality of a term in prison, and your life ahead.

There's some truth to that.
Prison doesn't necessarily scare me - it's another place to live... to exist...
And that's all I'm managing to do right now.
I don't care about my job, my life, nor my dwelling place (it's not a "home") enough to fight to keep them. After my arrest, I disengaged from the "real world" and have no urgent desire to go back, nor participate in it again.
The whole 9-5 routine boggles my mind and frustrates me.
I don't see the point to any of it.

If this is all there is to life, than I've had enough of it. I really have. So let "them" take these things from me. Let me escape the socially constructed reality that's been created enslaving all of us to activities we don't fully enjoy enough to continue doing without monetary reward.

And even then - what's the point? Money... to acquire more physical things of comfort - to assist in tolerating the intolerable - in order that one may "live another day" in some modicum of comfort...
Without living for any reason - other than that of existing in this world...

If the total purpose of existence is merely that - to exist - and all life is a struggle to merely exist...
If there is no higher purpose... nothing to strive for other than that "one more day on earth"...
Why do any of us persist in anything?

You need to realize that prison is not the end of the road.

But it is.
If my acts are indeed violations against the laws of nature and the rights nature has imparted into every person on this earth, than there is no conceivable way to convince me that a) I'm a free person, b) human rights exist, c) there is a purpose to continue existing in this world.
If my acts violate those "rights" yet I have none, there is a complex paradox which I am incapable of understanding - as I am able to violate that which does not exist. If this paradox persists - and it intensifies as I am "lawfully" stripped of the illusion of my own rights while others retain this illusion under "the law" - in its obviously exclusionary, one sided manner, what purpose have I, the un-righted person, to exist in this world of meager privilege - when even those privileges have been suspended indefinitely?
It isn't just prison - it's the "eternal consequences" of a felony conviction - and not the superficial "getting a job" etc. either - the esoteric meaning behind it - that I am, indeed, no longer a "person" as persons have rights, but I am something else - inferior and outcast.

Prison - at this point - means nothing. I have already been stripped of what rights I believed I had...
I have no right to property. I have no right to liberty. I have no right to "life" as surely my liberty and life go hand in hand - and to be deprived of one is just as surely to be deprived of the other, for existence without liberty is not "life" but a parody of life itself - physical animation and awareness without the need to reason... to think... without the ability to choose nor do anything, should I actually take time to reason or think. The term "limbo" comes to mind - and this is not a "state of the living" but a "state of the dead" - fabled, at any rate - and I see no purpose to existing in "living limbo" which is no more "living" than death anyway.

Of course - I get ahead of myself...
The reason I have no rights is for having possessed property which I believed I owned.
If ownership does not come from creation or consensual contract with the recognized owner, ownership must come from The Law. If ownership comes from a higher authority, it is not a RIGHT but a privilege - and no property rights exist at all.
And if no right to property which one owns exists, I have no right to liberty nor life, as nothing I work for - create or purchase - can ever truly be mine.
With our materialistic society - for the people to own nothing - is a fate worse than death, as surely the absence of consciousness is less painful than deprivation of everything you have worked for, simply because your own works/achievements/purchases are not truly your own.

It is not the "temporary constraint" upon my freedoms and liberties that depresses me, nor that gives rise to this feeling of "defeat" that you interpret from my responses...
It is the principal of what that defeat would mean - that no rights exist at all...
That Government is the only source of "rights" - to include the ability/right to live itself.
At your insistence, Government may as well GOD for all the good pointing out Government's errors can do.
If Government is God - or has all powers as though it were indeed God itself - then I refuse to worship and obey this false God, and as this "God" is the supreme ruler of "this world" - I'm ready to leave it.
I cannot accept that we are all mere slaves of God-verment, and we have no "free will" so to speak - only the privileged grant of "self-judgment" so long as it is only used in compliance with the overall intentions, purposes, and approval of Godverment. My inability to cope with this stems from the FACT that Godvernment is naught but MEN, equal in rights (allegedly) to myself. If these "men" are subject to no law - and are the sole source of both RIGHT and LAW as they are one and the same, and they disapprove of myself and my actions...
And render me mute through restrictions upon my privileged ability to speak/hold office/vote...
There is nothing left for me to do in this world, as it is lost - both to myself, and to any cause of liberty, which would be the only cause I would be willing to fight for.
If Government is NOT God - then I will gladly place myself at the mercy of God, for Go(d)vernment has shown me none, and refuses to recognize any "right" which even Government claims - in some form - actually exists.


My defeat;
At this time, being "out on bail" I retain freedoms you claim as "rights" solely by privileged consent of Government. For these limited freedoms to be "reduced" by the controlling agency deprives me of nothing at this point - as my "rights" are already gone.
I have no more freedoms which I have any need of protecting, as not even my own life, at this point, is my own.

I can deal with this. I can get past this. A few years of diminished "rights" s not something unbearable which will break me.
What will break me is that if all is as you contend; that rights are derivative from a Totalitarian state...
That all property is inherent in the State, and it may be taken at any time for any reason without regard for the owner of the property.
If property - the fruit of one's labor - is not safe... if it is not one's own... one's labor is not one's own, one's time contributing to that labor is not their own, and if their time is not their own, their life is not their own.

If these things are true - there is no point to my continued existence outside of prison, as I can acquire nothing, achieve nothing, and have no security nor safety should I attempt to acquire or claim anything. There is no point to existing in this material world, as no material is "mine" nor do I have any "right" to use any material in this plane of existence. If I have no ability to effect change in this world - as I have no right to engage in any activity in this world - then I have no reason to exist further, as my privileged grants by Government, even uninhibited by any record of conviction, are not great enough to satisfy my own demands and needs for liberty.
The concept that all "rights" flow from Government; that I exist at their will, limited tolerance, and by grant of privilege, is beyond my ability to cope.
Government is not something I will voluntarily contribute my time and energy to at this point, as it has destroyed my life - mind and soul - and is determined to confine my body so that not even that remains unsullied by its hand.

Would that I could go back to my ignorant existence...
That I could be satisfied with meager "grants of privilege" from a God-King...
But I cannot.
I recognize no sovereignty outside the individual, and as each person is sovereign, no authority capable of granting and revoking rights can exist within my capacity to reason.
Should you be correct - and I lose this battle - my state of mind will be so completely unaligned with the world's that I will surely have no place in it.

It will make some things more difficult. But you will have opportunities, and you will adjust. It is important though that you take time now to start investigating those opportunities, and to try to fit things together for yourself. Having FACTS at your disposal will enable you to build a plan going forward, and THAT will enable you to keep a sense of hope and optimism.

But what hope? What optimism?
If - as you claim - no rights to property exist, only the privileged grants by Government, what "hope" for the future may I maintain?
Even should I reclaim my "liberty" being freed from prison and parole, nothing I achieve will ever be "mine" - and without the ability to look towards the future and plan - as everything is subject to the control of another and can be taken at any moment for any reason - what is the point in even trying?
Even if this power did not exist - what is the purpose of building something in this world... creating something that I can keep - as all is temporary anyway?
If it is not taken by government, anything I acquire or create will be taken by death - and again, the net gain is nothing.

Regarding drug violence and prohibition... yes, if there were no prohibition, there would be much less violence associated with the trafficking and sale of drugs. But there is prohibition. And so the sale and trafficking of drugs does contribute to violence, and misery, in a multitude of ways.

I think you're over reaching here...
The laws contribute to violence and misery. Drug trafficking is an expression of the people's desire to be free from oppression and control by something they cannot approach nor question.
Revolution contributes to violence and misery in the hopes that these things can be overcome.
Drug dealing under prohibition may contribute to violence and misery AT THE FAULT of prohibition - but the aim is that of revolution... Freedom, and escape from the violence and misery caused by both life in general, as well as prohibition.

Prohibition contributes to violence and misery. Drug trafficking is just standing in the bank while Prohibition Agents rob it - creating the unsafe environment while projecting blame at those standing in the bank trying to engage in a mutually beneficial and peaceful transaction.
If government did not engage in armed deprivation of property interests, and instead worked towards fulfilling its purpose of "protecting and securing" the rights of the people, the violence associated with property ownership (without issued license) would not exist.

You forget that prohibition does NOT exist - only a licensing statute which alienates the people from their "right" to property by converting it into a privilege - and condemning those engaging in the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right to be gunned down - or imprisoned - for exercising a right without first obtaining a license from "the issuing authority" with no legitimate authority to issue such a license in the first place.

 

[Kalash]

Actual update!!!

Quick update (I should mark that somehow - seeing as how most of this is now legal/moral/other debate...)

My attorney called - sentencing has been pushed back...
2 days.
To Wed. the 6th at 9am.

No reason was given - just an order from the court clerk with a change of date.
My dad's working on changing plane tickets now >_<
And if they can't get changed, that's gonna be an EARLY morning train ride 8)

 

[Heuristic]

I'm less interested in rights recognized by law than rights secured by the Constitution...
I'm still not convinced that the Constitution "grants" any right. It may grant "legal recognition" of a right, but this "legal recognition" by the state must also constrain the state from engaging in any activity which would violate such a right.
Property - which we are discussing - is something of which NO ONE can be deprived, for ANY reason, except by due process or just compensation. Possession of property CANNOT be the grounds for the deprivation of the property - as the mere taking of the property as "evidence" of the crime of possession is deprivation prior to due process, without just cause, let alone compensation.

Not every substance and device on earth is permitted for lawful ownership. Nor do you have any right recognized in law, or secured by the Constitution, which grants you the absolute right to own any and every substance and device on earth.

Show me where this "compelling state interest" clause exists anywhere in the text of the Constitution and I'll yield.
Until then I remain unconvinced.

And your absolute right to property is stated... where?

can be NO LEGAL LIMIT to the rights of property other than those prescribed in Budd...

NSFW:

That property which a man has honestly acquired he
retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall
not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must
use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public
use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that
whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon
payment of due compensation.BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF
NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

NSFW:

Well, looking up Budd, I actually find that the Court upheld a NY State statute which fixed maximum charges which could be charged by those engaged in the business of operating grain elevators and storages. In doing so, the Court stated that "[t]he elevator is devoted by its owner, who engages in the business, to a use in which the public has an interest, and he must submit to be controlled by public legislation for the common good." Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517, 545 (1892).

In other words, the case affirms precisely the principle I have been stating.

Further, the case has nothing to do with the power of government to prohibit the ownership of substances it finds harmful to the public good.

You want to argue that government deprived you of property without due process. Your problem is that government prohibited ownership of the kind of property at issue. You want to argue that government cannot prohibit ownership of a kind of property. You will not find a case supporting you on this.

The problem here is that you justify the criminality of my act by relying upon law that I question the validity of.
The law must stand by itself if it is to be upheld.
At the point of enactment, no control over the property rights of the people existed.
At the point of enactment, no lawful control existed by which the property of the people could be taken, nor use denied the owners of the property.
Denying one the use of their property is deprivation of that property - and is prohibited from Governmental acts by the 5th Amendment.

Well, actually, government did have control over property rights when the Constitution was enacted.

Lawful acquisition of property at the time the law was created did not prevent those currently in possession of property from being prosecuted.
Neither, prior to the law, was the engagement in the exercise of this "right to property" subject to the approval (and licensing) by the state...
Which clearly places the CSA into the "Unconstitutional Licensing Law" category...

Well, those who possessed the substance at the time the legislation was passed might have a case for compensation.

But you do not. You acquired the banned substance long after it was banned.

If the law is invalid - or not sustainable as fact in point - what is "honest acquisition" of property?
Under your position, honest and lawful acquisition of property amount to the same thing... And without any constraints upon the legislature, ANY property can be LAWFULLY TAKEN without due process nor compensation by simply making it "illegal" to possess that property, regardless of ownership.

Sure. But if you lawfully owned such property prior to the possession being declared illegal, you would, generally, have a case for receiving compensation. You would NOT have a case for ignoring the law.

If creating something implies no rights to the thing, how can one apply for a patent?

Because we have specific laws enabling one to apply for a patent, just as we have specific copyright laws. These are specific, enacted statutes. They are not simply applications of some general principle that "if you create it, then it is yours." Such a principle does not exist in our law, and for good reason.

If creation does not imply rights of ownership, does a person building a house not own the house?
If you create something - and do not "own" it - who is it that "owns" and has rights to the labor which was used in the production of the item?

That depends. Were you legally permitted to erect such a structure? Did you own the land on which you built it? Did you own the materials with which you constructed it? Etc. Simply that you yourself built it doesn't give you a right of ownership.

If ownership is only derived from "the law" then all "the law" - being Government - must do to deprive anyone of "their property" - is to make a law against its ownership - rendering the 5th Amendment useless.

If you already own something lawfully, and the government, one way or the other, deprives you of it, then you can seek compensation. But the substance in question was long declared illegal by the time you possessed it.

The argument being raised is a question of Constitutional law - CAN, under their enumerated powers, Government exercise a power that exceeds the rights of the people themselves - even to the point where a right protected by Amendment can be undone - as denial of use/possession is deprivation of property - without due process, nor just compensation?

Well, since such regulation of property has been accomplished by government since America existed, and since Britain existed, and since such power is recognized in local, state, and federal law, I would say your chances of persuading any court that the people cannot grant government such a power to be zero.

The 9th amendment secures non-enumerated rights to the people... So the claim that "possession of property you've created" is not a right recognized "by law" is irrelevant, as The Constitution IS law, and as property is both enumerated in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments - as well as the unenumerated protections afforded by the 9th, property rights MUST be acknowledged by any agency of the United States Government, and the courts have upheld this perpetually until the last decade - when Government began claiming that "things in commerce" are not "property" to which one pay acquire any rights.

Well, we would look to caselaw to determine whether there is some unenumerated right being infringed upon by the Controlled Substances Act. You won't find anything.

This is criminal racketeering, and I believe you'll find it to be an unlawful deprivation of property - both in the 4th and 5th amendment sense... Backed by federal statutes - Title 18 chapter 13 sections 241, 242, and chapter 95, section 1951.
Unless violations by government officials of these laws somehow does not amount to an "unlawful act" then the deprivation of property for merely possessing that property without consent of Government cannot be a "lawful deprivation" of property.

This is the equivalent of claiming that taxation is theft. It's an absurd argument. OF COURSE it makes a difference that it is government, and not the guy next door, which is declaring ownership of a substance illegal. Government can do all sorts of things that a private individual cannot do.

Touching on our nuclear weapons again - probable cause can exist, via legitimate complaint by an injured party (perceived injury or actual) - and the seizure and subsequent due process can both take place and determine the ability of the owner to possess their property.

The government forbids you from creating or owning nuclear weapons, period, regardless of whether anyone ever claims an injury.

Before all other law, the Constitution existed.
How can "lawful ownership" exist when there are no LAWS which one may apply to the situation at the time?

Well, law did exist before the Constitution.

Prison doesn't necessarily scare me - it's another place to live... to exist...
And that's all I'm managing to do right now.
I don't care about my job, my life, nor my dwelling place (it's not a "home") enough to fight to keep them. After my arrest, I disengaged from the "real world" and have no urgent desire to go back, nor participate in it again.
The whole 9-5 routine boggles my mind and frustrates me.
I don't see the point to any of it.

If this is all there is to life, than I've had enough of it. I really have. So let "them" take these things from me. Let me escape the socially constructed reality that's been created enslaving all of us to activities we don't fully enjoy enough to continue doing without monetary reward.

And even then - what's the point? Money... to acquire more physical things of comfort - to assist in tolerating the intolerable - in order that one may "live another day" in some modicum of comfort...
Without living for any reason - other than that of existing in this world...

If the total purpose of existence is merely that - to exist - and all life is a struggle to merely exist...
If there is no higher purpose... nothing to strive for other than that "one more day on earth"...
Why do any of us persist in anything?

This is depression, Kalash. Sometimes it masquerades under philosophy, or in your case, a legal argument, but this is simply depression. There's more to 9-5 than the hours involved.

The good news is that it is treatable, and the rates of success for treatment are very good. People find enjoyment and meaning in life, whether it's the sensation of food after a long fast, a hot shower after a workout, sex, love, reading and argument, pursuit of a goal, etc. That has nothing to do with whatever government we have. Nothing.

It isn't just prison - it's the "eternal consequences" of a felony conviction - and not the superficial "getting a job" etc. either - the esoteric meaning behind it - that I am, indeed, no longer a "person" as persons have rights, but I am something else - inferior and outcast.

Well, I suggest to you that the "superficial" is actually quite meaningful. That you're not concerned about a job suggests to me that you don't grasp the connection between having an occupation and maintaining a sense of well-being.

Yes, you will have a felony conviction on your record. Does this mean you're incapable of leading a happy, fulfilling, and productive life? No.

The reason I have no rights is for having possessed property which I believed I owned.
If ownership does not come from creation or consensual contract with the recognized owner, ownership must come from The Law. If ownership comes from a higher authority, it is not a RIGHT but a privilege - and no property rights exist at all.
And if no right to property which one owns exists, I have no right to liberty nor life, as nothing I work for - create or purchase - can ever truly be mine.
With our materialistic society - for the people to own nothing - is a fate worse than death, as surely the absence of consciousness is less painful than deprivation of everything you have worked for, simply because your own works/achievements/purchases are not truly your own.

Crap. You trafficked in an illegal substance to make money. That's all. You have plenty of rights, and plenty of privileges. You DO own property, as do I. You simply were not entitled to own, and do commerce in, meth. What exactly is the argument here? "Give me meth or give me death?" I'm not buying it Kalash. This is nothing but a grand rationalization for depression.

The laws contribute to violence and misery. Drug trafficking is an expression of the people's desire to be free from oppression and control by something they cannot approach nor question.

Yeah. Drug violence is all about an expression of a desire to be free. Total bullshit. It's about a desire to make money, period.

Prohibition contributes to violence and misery. Drug trafficking is just standing in the bank while Prohibition Agents rob it - creating the unsafe environment while projecting blame at those standing in the bank trying to engage in a mutually beneficial and peaceful transaction.

Yeah, only the DEA kills people. Drug dealers are really just misunderstood libertarians. Who are you kidding?

 

[Kalash]

This is the equivalent of claiming that taxation is theft. It's an absurd argument. OF COURSE it makes a difference that it is government, and not the guy next door, which is declaring ownership of a substance illegal. Government can do all sorts of things that a private individual cannot do.

And this claim is absolutely absurd.
The Constitution makes it clear that all powers of government are derived from the rights of the people.
If I have no right to prohibit your ownership of something despite it causing me no harm, I cannot pass this power on to government.

You cannot resort to a Central-Sovereignty and claim precedence for the manner in which property is treated.
Under the God-Kings, all property was inherent in the state.
In America, that's simply not true.

Yeah. Drug violence is all about an expression of a desire to be free. Total bullshit. It's about a desire to make money, period.

Drug use is an expression of the desire to be free.
Drug dealing is enabling this expression of freedom in the face of violent threats and actual violence by those seeking to eliminate these freedoms without proper Constitutional authority...

Yeah, only the DEA kills people. Drug dealers are really just misunderstood libertarians. Who are you kidding?

You over-simplify.
The DEA forces people dealing drugs to arm themselves in order to protect their property (drugs).
The law prohibiting government from protecting any property it deems "illegal" is an act violating the spirit of the constitution, and an avoidance of Governmental purpose to protect equally the rights of all people regardless of the approval of the majority.

If government were to do its job and protect property created by/owned by drug dealers/users, there would be no need for "street justice" nor violent protection of one's own property interests from both the state, and those seeking to profit through the dishonest acquisition of property.

I'm at work and can't respond to the rest...
Government created the need for violence in regards to drug ownership/distribution. Without that need, the violence wouldn't exist.
The Government created the violence through willful negligence of its duties - even if it is not the agency which carries that violence out.

 

[Mariposa]

Whoa... my mind is officially blown.

Heuristic, one item, though: Kalash's brush with the law related to MDMA, not meth (Kalash, please correct me if I misread). "Give me Ecstasy or give me death" is a better 'battle cry' than "Give me meth or give me death"... I digress.

We'll be sending plenty of positive energy your way on Wednesday. Will you have any time to wrap up any loose ends beforehand, or do you need to turn into custody right away?

 

[Kalash]

Whoa... my mind is officially blown.

Heuristic, one item, though: Kalash's brush with the law related to MDMA, not meth (Kalash, please correct me if I misread). "Give me Ecstasy or give me death" is a better 'battle cry' than "Give me meth or give me death"... I digress.

We'll be sending plenty of positive energy your way on Wednesday. Will you have any time to wrap up any loose ends beforehand, or do you need to turn into custody right away?

To be honest, to me, this isn't about drugs at all any more, but for the record, I don't like meth. It absolutely MUST be legalized along with everything else, but I won't be using it regardless of its status.
And yes, my charges are for "a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of MDMA" - totaling 1,117g (4,857 pills - 3,000 of which I never saw, nor touched).

Heuristic's claim is that there are no rights to property existent in America.
The judge claims the same - that all "rights" to property are subject to complete and arbitrary control by government, even to the point of criminalizing possession of your property through a licensing statute.

If all rights enumerated in the Constitution are subject to complete control by government, they are not rights - they are privileges - and our constitution is as great a façade as the Human Rights Declaration by the U.N. It establishes no recognition of ANY right, but instead grants limited and revocable privileges to "the people" or "All Humanity" which can be taken for any "compelling state interest" which is unchecked by anything at all.

This isn't a matter of "drugs" being legalized - though stopping the violent crimes against otherwise peaceful citizens is definitely in everyone's best interest (aside from the drug dealers...)

It is a matter of liberty - and whether it exists, or is a fiction created by "those whom control all others" in order to make their control more palatable - and invisible - allowing for greater productivity of "those they control" and therefore greater gains for themselves.
Note that "power to control" is a derivative right of OWNERSHIP, and the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that we are all slaves of Government - and that freedom is nothing more than a falsehood to keep "the people" obedient, complacent, and blind.

When you ask a person on the street if they have property rights - they answer "Yes"
If the people claim to retain their right to property, there is little Government may do to take that right by force if they intend to remain a lawful or legitimate form of government.

This is a matter of origin of rights... Collectivism vs. Individualism...
Either as Heuristic proclaims, we are a collectivist society; government has grants - by God or some other ineffable source - of all "rights" which it may control to its contentment, and privileges, enumerated in the Constitution (despite their name and the reference to the 9th Amendment), are passed to the people while Government retains all RIGHTS to revoke those privileges at any time...

Or, we have a philosophy of individualism which guides us, and secures rights to the people by Constitutional prohibition on certain acts of government's limited powers, derived from the rights of the people - and as no person can infringe upon the rights of any other person in this country without it being considered "crime" - government cannot collectively violate the rights of any person in this country, or it remains "crime" - is unconstitutional, invalid (if legislation) and can be ignored with impunity, or relieve may be sought for the wrongs committed by Government as commissions of these offenses - the highest order of criminality - which are punishable under the equal protection clause...

That Government recognizes no rights to property is not the issue at hand, it is a consequence of difference in philosophy...
The real issue is whether Government has powers greater than any individual's rights...
Because if there is no "right to control property" without consent of a higher authority (in this case, the claimant is Government which also claims to get its powers from the "consent of the governed - as well as the rights of the people), no power can be derived from a right that does not exist, and Government cannot control that property any more than the people who have no rights to property themselves.

If, on the other than, that right DOES exist, it is beyond Government's ability to take without the consent of the people (which, if you ask the average person, there is no consent to give up any property right at all), due process, or just compensation.

Either way, the conclusion is the same; Government's claim to control drugs is inconsistent with simple logic, and by my reasoning, even a cursory reading of the Constitution.
History tells a different tale, but history and length of an illegitimate claim do not render that claim valid simply through persistence.




But to answer the actual question - what will happen...
No one knows I could show up and have sentencing postponed again.
It's happened to Charlie Lynch about 5 times now - I was at one of his "to be sentenced" hearings where it was put off a month.
Realistically... my investor self reported - and I'm assuming I will be given that privilege as well... should I fail in my petition for bail on appeal.
That typically means 4-8 weeks for the overcrowded prison system to find somewhere to put you before you have to show up and surrender what dignity and privileges you have left - as your rights have been denied you since the date of your arrest.
The plea agreement was for 4 years, but the prosecutor is recommending 2.
My attorney is going to argue for 18-20 months (on grounds that the oral agreement between him and the prosecutor was for this range - immediately before the prosecutor filed the brief requesting 24).

And I'm just asking for bail on appeal - because Heuristic's protests aren't enough to sway me.
Maybe I spent too much time in Ron Paul's camp the last two years. Maybe the libertarian bug has infected me and I can't shake it off.
Or maybe I'm right - and we no longer have a legitimate government.

Time will tell, or snuff out my voice forever.
Either way, I'm not giving up now.




If I can't get back here, my sister will have access to my account to at least let you know what's happened.
Not that it's really a big mystery...
I'll either reply - or I won't - and the outcome will be known either way.
The only question will be the length of sentence, and there's enough personal info posted here for someone intelligent to pull up the public record.

 

[Heuristic]

Heuristic's claim is that there are no rights to property existent in America.
The judge claims the same - that all "rights" to property are subject to complete and arbitrary control by government, even to the point of criminalizing possession of your property through a licensing statute.

You have property rights, which are subject to regulation.

all rights enumerated in the Constitution are subject to complete control by government, they are not rights - they are privileges - and our constitution is as great a façade as the Human Rights Declaration by the U.N. It establishes no recognition of ANY right, but instead grants limited and revocable privileges to "the people" or "All Humanity" which can be taken for any "compelling state interest" which is unchecked by anything at all.

Uh huh. Getting real for a second: the last century has seen the largest expansion of civil rights in history. The notion that you are somehow a slave of the government, that the people have somehow lost rights, boggles the mind.

It is because we can regulate property that we can do things like 1) require minimum working conditions, 2) set a minimum wage, 3) force employers to allow unions, 4) forbid racial, sexual, and other forms of discrimination in hiring, 5) forbid ownership of nuclear weapons, 6) require airlines to maintain certain levels of safety, 7) require drug companies to submit to various tests before allowing their product on the market, and so forth.

This is a matter of origin of rights... Collectivism vs. Individualism...
Either as Heuristic proclaims, we are a collectivist society; government has grants - by God or some other ineffable source - of all "rights" which it may control to its contentment, and privileges, enumerated in the Constitution (despite their name and the reference to the 9th Amendment), are passed to the people while Government retains all RIGHTS to revoke those privileges at any time...

Heuristic claims that government can regulate property for the common good. You are free to petition Congress and the American people to change that.

That Government recognizes no rights to property is not the issue at hand, it is a consequence of difference in philosophy...
The real issue is whether Government has powers greater than any individual's rights...
Because if there is no "right to control property" without consent of a higher authority (in this case, the claimant is Government which also claims to get its powers from the "consent of the governed - as well as the rights of the people), no power can be derived from a right that does not exist, and Government cannot control that property any more than the people who have no rights to property themselves.

If, on the other than, that right DOES exist, it is beyond Government's ability to take without the consent of the people (which, if you ask the average person, there is no consent to give up any property right at all), due process, or just compensation.

Most people are fine with government regulating property in the public interest.

Either way, the conclusion is the same; Government's claim to control drugs is inconsistent with simple logic, and by my reasoning, even a cursory reading of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a legal document, and was created, and exists, in the context and structure of a larger body, and understanding of, law. That's part of the reason why the Constitution contains no definition of terms section.

Okay, now all this aside.

I hope that your sentencing hearing goes well. I also hope that you take to heart what I have said to you regarding depression. Regardless of your view of government, you can certainly lead a happy, fulfilling, and productive life. You are at one of the more stressful points in your life, but you'll get through it.

And the 9-5 Kalash? It's simply about having goals, enjoying your interactions with people, and so forth. It's about looking forward to the jokes you might share, to the accomplishments you might do, to the knowledge you might attain, to the dinner you'll have that night. People aren't going to work like zombies, living joyless lives, etc. Thoreau may have claimed that most live lives of quiet desperation. In reality, he was only talking about himself.

Finally, let me share with you one more piece of information. Studies have shown that when an event happens that causes us to feel sad, depressed, bleak, etc., we tend to overestimate the permanence of the emotion. We think we'll feel this way forever.

And we are always wrong. The bleak depression fades, we adjust, we adapt, and we move forward with life.

Hang in there. Keep thinking about this stuff but stay focused on YOUR situation. Do not let philosophizing about government get in the way of constructing real plans for the future, or addressing an understandable sense of depression. I hope we hear more from you soon.

 

[Heuristic]

And this claim is absolutely absurd.
The Constitution makes it clear that all powers of government are derived from the rights of the people.
If I have no right to prohibit your ownership of something despite it causing me no harm, I cannot pass this power on to government.

You, as an individual, do not. Government, as representative of the people as a whole, does. I could not "tax" you as an individual either. But government, against, as representative of the people as a whole, can.

Drug use is an expression of the desire to be free.

Drug use is an expression of a desire to get high. You think people roll, snort, smoke, inject, etc., to express a desire for some abstract freedom? They're chasing a high, nothing more. In itself, that's not necessarily a bad thing either. But let's not kid ourselves about what it is.

An expression of a desire to change a law is running for office, supporting someone running for office, writing op-eds, organizing like-minded individuals, writing to legislators, raising awareness, etc. These are real expressions of a desire for change.

Getting high? That's about getting high. Nothing else.

Drug dealing is enabling this expression of freedom in the face of violent threats and actual violence by those seeking to eliminate these freedoms without proper Constitutional authority...

Drug dealing is an attempt to make money by providing an in demand product. It is frequently associated with acts of horrific violence to secure market access and reduce the number of one's competitors. It is also frequently used to provide a stream of income to fund other illegal activities.

None of this has anything to do with civil disobedience or views on freedom. We have legitimate means to change laws in this country. You are welcome, even encouraged, to avail yourself of those means.

You over-simplify.
The DEA forces people dealing drugs to arm themselves in order to protect their property (drugs).

Sure, because all drug dealers do is protect their own particular product.

Anyway, here's another option: perhaps people could simply stop dealing and focus on changing the law. There are lots of laws I disagree with. That doesn't give me the right to break them. Instead, I have means available to persuade others to change those laws. That's how our system works; that's how we make real progress.

The law prohibiting government from protecting any property it deems "illegal" is an act violating the spirit of the constitution, and an avoidance of Governmental purpose to protect equally the rights of all people regardless of the approval of the majority.

Government regulation of property is essential to the functioning of modern society, and we would be a far more destitute society without such regulation. But hey, there are plenty of investment bankers right now (and perhaps at least one former auto-company CEO) who are in full agreement that government really shouldn't be regulating property as much as it is. So you're not alone.

If government were to do its job and protect property created by/owned by drug dealers/users, there would be no need for "street justice" nor violent protection of one's own property interests from both the state, and those seeking to profit through the dishonest acquisition of property.

IF. But the reality is that we have prohibition. You may not like it, but that's what we've got. Act accordingly.

 

[tobala]

An expression of a desire to change a law is running for office, supporting someone running for office, writing op-eds, organizing like-minded individuals, writing to legislators, raising awareness, etc. These are real expressions of a desire for change.

Sure, they express a desire for change, but without the breaking of the laws en masse there's really no foundation for that desire in the first place. I agree that most people don't get high to express a political position, but it's still an expression of dissatisfaction with bad laws.

The remedies you mention above have been implemented since almost from the time the CSA was put into effect. Yet here we are--40 years later--and very little progress has been made. In some ways, the situation is even worse.

If people were to be good little boys and girls by not breaking drug laws, there would be no incentive to change them. And worse, if government perceived it could manipulate people that easily, the floodgates to more bad laws would open wider than it is already.

Almost all significant social change is preceded by revolutionaries who are by definition law-breakers, for example the Founding Fathers. They didn't effect change by obeying the law.

Anyway, here's another option: perhaps people could simply stop dealing and focus on changing the law. There are lots of laws I disagree with. That doesn't give me the right to break them. Instead, I have means available to persuade others to change those laws. That's how our system works; that's how we make real progress.

In light of the fact that drug laws originated in racism, and over almost a century became a huge cash cow, it has become almost impossible to change drug laws. And even when they are changed, it means little.

Case in point: medical marijuana. In several states the people have spoken, yet the federal government has told them to get fucked. With this attitude, even changing the law doesn't seem to work! Unfortunately the War on Drugs monster has taken on a life of its own and the money-channeling pipelines that have been established by it are very resistant to logic or the well-being of the citizenry.

 

[Heuristic]

Sure, they express a desire for change, but without the breaking of the laws en masse there's really no foundation for that desire in the first place. I agree that most people don't get high to express a political position, but it's still an expression of dissatisfaction with bad laws.

It's a symptom that many people don't want to obey the laws in question, nothing more. A lot of people would prefer the speed limits would be higher too. A lot of people would prefer to pay less in taxes. There are a lot of unpopular laws that quite a few people break.

But for the most part, people don't buy illegal drugs, don't evade their tax responsibilities, and don't (egregiously) speed.

the remedies you mention above have been implemented since almost from the time the CSA was put into effect. Yet here we are--40 years later--and very little progress has been made. In some ways, the situation is even worse.

Well, sometimes that happens in democracies. You don't always get what you want. Change can take time, and sometimes your preferred policy doesn't win. I don't like it when my preferred policy doesn't win, but this is how democracy works. It's still a legitimate law.

If people were to be good little boys and girls by not breaking drug laws, there would be no incentive to change them. And worse, if government perceived it could manipulate people that easily, the floodgates to more bad laws would open wider than it is already.

Oh, sure there would. If most voters thought the laws should be changed, then the laws would be changed. The incentive would be some type of popular demand that such drugs should be freely available, or not prohibited, etc. Not enough voters think so, and not enough care, so they're not. We have a system for changing the law in this country. It is legitimate, and it works.

The fact is that the vast majority of those who vote don't use the banned substances, understand those substances to be addictive and harmful to those who use them, understand that those who trade in them often use violence to attain their goals. So yeah, most of those who vote aren't that interested in changing the drug laws. Are there good arguments for legalizing certain drugs? Sure. A case for legalizing marijuana made the front cover of The Economist in recent years. Will marijuana be legalized eventually? Probably.

I don't view obeying a valid law as "being a good little boy or girl." I view it as the duty of any mature citizen. And when I think disobeying a law will put money into the hands of criminal enterprises that regularly use violence, or distribute harmful substances to minors, then I think obedience to that law is the duty of every human being.

Almost all significant social change is preceded by revolutionaries who are by definition law-breakers, for example the Founding Fathers. They didn't effect change by obeying the law.

On the contrary, you can integrate the military, pass civil rights acts, extend voting rights to women, allow gay marriage, extend the right to choose, etc., all without resorting to any kind of violence, all without breaking the law with the exception of mild forms of civil disobedience.

Now that said, I DO agree that there is a role for civil disobedience. I don't think trafficking in illegal drugs constitutes civil disobedience. Nor do I think purchasing drugs to get high constitutes civil disobedience.

Case in point: medical marijuana. In several states the people have spoken, yet the federal government has told them to get fucked. With this attitude, even changing the law doesn't seem to work! Unfortunately the War on Drugs monster has taken on a life of its own and the money-channeling pipelines that have been established by it are very resistant to logic or the well-being of the citizenry.

In the case of medical marijuana, state law has been changed (democratically). Federal law, however, has not. Federal law trumps.

And, given the widespread availability in California of medical marijuana, I'd disagree that the change hasn't had an impact.

 

[Kalash]

I'll address this first, as this is the source of our conflict.

Well, sometimes that happens in democracies. You don't always get what you want. Change can take time, and sometimes your preferred policy doesn't win. I don't like it when my preferred policy doesn't win, but this is how democracy works. It's still a legitimate law.

That's the problem with America today. The refusal to accept that we do not have a democracy.
We don't (lawfully, nor constitutionally) have a democracy, as you would call it - which is "majority rule" - no such thing exists LAWFULLY in the United States.

We have a Constitutional republic which is important, not because of the semantic difference between a republic and a democracy, but in that the Constitution prohibits Rule of the Majority by SUPREME LAW.
Elected officals are not "above the law" nor can they exercise any powers they please in accordance to the wishes of the majority.
People have forgotten this, and Government has seized this opportunity to acquire powers of absolute Democracy.
Absolute democracy is a totalitarian state of affairs - and any provisions preventing a totalitarian state from engaging in a certain course of actions with regards to the rights of its subjects can be waived at will.
This is democratic anarchy - without Rule of Law - but Rule of Whomever Gets the Most Votes.
This is despotism, and it is criminal under the Constitution.

Here is the conflict in our ideologies - I claim, with good cause, that the Constitution forbids Governmental exercise to the diminishing or abrogation of the rights of the people...
Under the Rule of Law.

You claim that the "rule of law" is simply the laws enacted by the legislature - which is subject to no other law...
And that any enactment of the legislature can shape or alter the rights of the people to the point that they do not excise, so long as the majority stands behind the acts.

But... more on that throughout - here's a reply to your previous post that I started last night >_<

Not every substance and device on earth is permitted for lawful ownership. Nor do you have any right recognized in law, or secured by the Constitution, which grants you the absolute right to own any and every substance and device on earth.

But what is the source of this power?
If there is no "right" to control things which are prohibited, the power to prohibit must be greater than the right to own things.
If this power is greater than the rights inherent in the people - how can the people have granted this power, derived from a right that doesn't exist - to government?

I don't need to source my RIGHTS - they are inherent, natural, and secured to me as I am self-ruling and there is no higher authority on this earth that can take my rights nor convert them to privileges without my consent, or infringement upon the rights of another - in which case they may (and ought to) defend themselves from my advances.
Government, however, must source it's authority - as its authority is in question. If the source of authority remains, as the Constitution states, "the rights of the people," then the authority it is claiming to exercise must be a diminished right inherent in myself.
If I do not consent to relinquish this right - as there is no injured party with standing to bring a case against me (I cannot LEGALLY have a civil case brought against my for what I've done - yet somehow my acts are "worse than a mere civil matter" - this is something else I don't understand...) and no "crime" has been committed by which Due Process may initiation to deprive me of the right I am charged with having exercised - it cannot be taken...
As that is an unlawful initiation of force. It is crime itself.

And your absolute right to property is stated... where?

Of all rights, the right to property is held to be the most "sacred" as none of the other natural rights (life nor liberty) have any meaning if one cannot lay claim to the fruits of his labor.
How can one "pursue happiness" if he cannot acquire property? How can you be "free" or have liberty if you cannot possess that which you have labored for, created, or purchased? What right to life do you have if your property (fruits of your labor - your time) are not your own?
If you do not "own" your time, you cannot claim to own your life.

Governmental power to overcome any incomplete right of property is stated... where?

Well, looking up Budd, I actually find that the Court upheld a NY State statute which fixed maximum charges which could be charged by those engaged in the business of operating grain elevators and storages. In doing so, the Court stated that "[t]he elevator is devoted by its owner, who engages in the business, to a use in which the public has an interest, and he must submit to be controlled by public legislation for the common good." Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517, 545 (1892).

And the Supreme court is not infallible. (Nor am I, as that is obviously not a good case to cite.)
Where is the "public interest" or "common good" clause that supersedes the amendments?
I don't have to defend my right to property - Government must defend its powers enabling it to diminish, deprive, and license my rights back to me.

But... playing ball...
Drug sales can be "of public concern" but they are far less of a concern than Government reversing the public's property rights and seizing control over property without proper authority.
Even if "drug sales" are "of public concern," Government's authority over reaches to mere possession, and as there is no possible way for government to deprive people of their property through mere legislative fiat.
The act of criminalizing "possession" is deprivation of property. Timeliness, again, doesn't make a "Wrongful act" right - even if it has been accepted and permitted to continue.

In other words, the case affirms precisely the principle I have been stating.

And if this holds, you can show me the "public interest" or "rational state interest" clause which abrogates all protections of the Amendments.
If not - the ruling in Budd must have been in error, and the courts, today, must adhere to the Constitution and reverse it.

Further, the case has nothing to do with the power of government to prohibit the ownership of substances it finds harmful to the public good.

No - it deals with government "controlling" private property which is used for a public purpose - a business license.
A prohibition on ownership because of "reason we disapprove" is legislated morality and again, invalid law...

You want to argue that government deprived you of property without due process. Your problem is that government prohibited ownership of the kind of property at issue. You want to argue that government cannot prohibit ownership of a kind of property. You will not find a case supporting you on this.

Yes - but no.
Government has NOT prohibited ownership of "the kind of property at issue"
Government has taken property rights of "the kind of property at issue" and licensed them back to the people.
As no RIGHT can be taken and licensed to the people (under any circumstance), the statute is Unconstitutional.
I was not "deprived of my property" without due process...

The allegation is that I "engaged in property rights without first obtaining a Government issued license" - and THIS is what cannot take place.
The conversion of a right (to property) cannot be converted into a privilege by the state.
"But it's illegal" is irrelevant - as the statute making the property ownership illegal is one which requires a license - if a license is required to engage in a right, the law is Unconstitutional and invalid.

I was justly compensated for my property.
The claim of government is that I "controlled this property" prior to my being compensated.
If Government recognized no right to this property, why did they compensate me for it?

Well, actually, government did have control over property rights when the Constitution was enacted.

That's tricky.
Don't make me pull out Spooner...
You speak of a technicality.
"Government" was a group of elected men - representatives of "the people"
Acting in the name of "the people"
And these men, in the interest of "the people" established a subservient government with limited powers derived from the natural rights of "the people" - recognizing no other source of authority, and - for the first time in history - abandoning the concept that the "Head of State" was the sole sovereign - and all others under their rule were mere subjects - without any rights whatsoever, and fully subject to the whims of the "Head of State"

While "Government" may have controlled property rights after "winning" those rights from the British crown, it is recognized that Government did not win the war - but the people, sacrificing their lives in the name of freedom, losing their loved ones to attain a liberty never before realized by any people on this earth - were truly the victors, and the temporary government stepped aside and allowed the people to claim their rights as spoils of war, negating any future claim Government may make upon those rights.

Once it was acknowledged that rights were inherent in the people, government could no longer touch them.
Unless the Constitution has changed - and the people have vested all rights back into Government by a unanimous vote, the rights of the people are still absolutely prohibited from being infringed upon nor diminished by any act of Government.

Well, those who possessed the substance at the time the legislation was passed might have a case for compensation.

But you still fail to cite the source of authority for the legislation.
Powers of government are enumerated, limited, and subject to the prohibitions of the amendments.
In order to pass the law, Government was depriving persons of their property, and no compensation was offered.
If the passing of the law was in violation of the Constitutional protections AT THE TIME, it was invalid at the time of its enactment and can surely not be "law" now.

But you do not. You acquired the banned substance long after it was banned.

But in banning the substance, people were deprived of their property without due process nor compensation - and the engagement in the exercise of their RIGHTS was converted into a crime.
Again - if it wasn't legal at the moment it was created (as it was blatantly in violation of the 5th amendment AT THE TIME) I fail to see how the law can continue to exist, as it was clearly an Unconstitutional Enactment.

Sure. But if you lawfully owned such property prior to the possession being declared illegal, you would, generally, have a case for receiving compensation. You would NOT have a case for ignoring the law.

But this is in error.
An unconstitutional licensing statute is no law at all and can be ignored with impunity.
It's established that at the instant it was created, the CSA deprived people of their property without due process nor compensation.
At the instant it was created, it was Unconstitutional - and therefore invalid, and fully capable of being ignored with impunity.

Why does time change the fundamental nature of the law from Unconstitutional to Constitutionally acceptable?
How is it that time can change an invalid law into valid law, when the law itself is not changed, nor the time of its enforcement mutable?

Because we have specific laws enabling one to apply for a patent, just as we have specific copyright laws. These are specific, enacted statutes. They are not simply applications of some general principle that "if you create it, then it is yours." Such a principle does not exist in our law, and for good reason.

So how does something "become yours" if your creation of the thing is not the initial grant of ownership of the thing in question?
At what point does possession turn into ownership?
When licensed by Government? So all property is a mere privileged grant by Government?

Property rights "to things" such as drugs is unqualified. It is absolute;

. Property is divided into real property, (q.v.) and personal property. (q.v.) Vide Estate; Things.
4. Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.
5. Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi. 2 Bl. Com. 396; 3 Binn. 546.
6. But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without ally relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property. Vide, Bailee; Bailment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Property+(ownership+right)
Now, before you get all giddy and run around exclaiming "LOOK AT #1!!!" keep in mind that "manner prohibited by law" is intended as the "protection of the rights of others" - not "under governmental mandate, as no actual property rights exist, and all property remains wholly controlled by government - and if you want it, you'd better get a license, or any possession or use, regardless of apparent ownership, is prohibited by LAW"
Bearing in mind that "The Law" is also subject to the limitations of an individual's rights.
The Law cannot make the possession of its neighbor's property "criminal" simply because it doesn't approve of that property.
If the neighbor's property is used in violation of "The Law's" own rights, it can file a civil suit and have their neighbor's property right to that thing which offense suspended via due process of law.
If they want to take property from their neighbor, they must compensate them in a just manner.
If they want to lock their neighbor in the basement for possessing something they don't want their neighbor to possess, "The LAW" has committed a CRIME against their neighbor - and no qualified reason of "enforcing The LAW" can justify this unprovoked crime.

That depends. Were you legally permitted to erect such a structure? Did you own the land on which you built it?

Assuming the land was owned by yourself, and no "permission from the state" was acquired, where would be your crime?

Did you own the materials with which you constructed it?

Well... that depends.
The materials came from the forest on your property, and you did all the labor yourself.
So the materials came from YOUR land, the labor came from yourself, and you own the land on which the structure was erected.

But you claim that "gathering resources" and "building it yourself" do not bestow ownership...
What exactly "ownership" if it is not something attained without constructs of "law" permitting or denying engagement in rights inherent in ownership?

Etc. Simply that you yourself built it doesn't give you a right of ownership.

No - just as surely as there is no "right to drugs" which you have not come to own through mutual consent of the parties engaging in the transaction.
Just as there is no "right to health-care"
Building another's property on their land with their materials does not give you any right to the property - however ownership of both the materials and the labor does ensure your right tot he finished product.

If you already own something lawfully, and the government, one way or the other, deprives you of it, then you can seek compensation. But the substance in question was long declared illegal by the time you possessed it.

And Government STILL compensated me for the property in question - then challenged that I controlled it prior to ceding my property rights to the contracting party.

Well, since such regulation of property has been accomplished by government since America existed, and since Britain existed, and since such power is recognized in local, state, and federal law, I would say your chances of persuading any court that the people cannot grant government such a power to be zero.

I already touched on this...
America is set up differently than any other historical country.
America was the first nation in the world to recognize "the people" as the source of authority for Government itself.

As "the people" have no ability to take property from their neighbor unless it is defense of their own rights, Government cannot have this power either.
Britain had (and continues to not have) and limitation on its powers, as the sovereignty is held by the Head-of-State - the monarchy.

Well, we would look to caselaw to determine whether there is some unenumerated right being infringed upon by the Controlled Substances Act. You won't find anything.

But this is reversed...
Caselaw need not determine a "right" exists beyond that of property ownership.
Caselaw needs to establish a "right" from which the power Government is engaged in using is consensually derived from.
If no right exists at all - Government cannot engage in the claim and exercise of a derivative power of a right that does not exist.
If the right exists, it must be voluntarily waived - or be abrogated through due process - before one can be held to be "criminally" engaged in the exercise of that right.
Legislative acts are not the requisite due process - so even assuming the people had unanimously and consensually given their natural rights to property to government through a special grant of power, that power could not exceed the initial rights of the people themselves.
The "right" to control property one does not own does not exist. Government cannot exercise control over property that has not been made public (given to the public for its use), nor compensated the previous owner for in a manner determined to be "just."
To "control" this property without these things - and without a civil plaintiff with standing who's rights Government is assisting in the protection of - is deprivation of that property in violation of the 5th amendment.

This is the equivalent of claiming that taxation is theft. It's an absurd argument. OF COURSE it makes a difference that it is government, and not the guy next door, which is declaring ownership of a substance illegal. Government can do all sorts of things that a private individual cannot do.

But taxation IS theft.
More specifically, it is extortion.
"Give us money, or we'll come after you with guns."
This is an outstanding threat against the people by government...
And it would do you well to learn your history and find out that the Federal government did NOT collect taxes when it was formed, nor did it in its first years of existence.
Thomas Jefferson commented on this during his second Inaugural address - stating that all was as it should be, for taxation was as clear a threat to the personal liberties secured by the constitution as a king.
Why is there a difference for the actions of government and the actions of a person?

It is clear that no government official is "above the law" - how then can "government" collectively, full of governmental officials that are not "above the law" violate the law by breaching the rights of "the people?"

The government forbids you from creating or owning nuclear weapons, period, regardless of whether anyone ever claims an injury.

This is slightly different in that the creation of a weapon of that nature can have no legitimate purpose that will not violate the rights of many against their will.
They are incomparable. If you're making a weapon it is reasonable to assume you intend to use the weapon. A nuclear weapon cannot be used without affecting the lives, liberty, and property of others.
If you're making a drug it is reasonable to assume you intend to use the drug. A drug CAN be used without affecting the rights of a non-consenting party, and this is where the line must be drawn.
If a thing CAN be used for non-criminal purposes, government must tolerate that thing, as to not is a violation of the natural right to liberty; to use that thing for a perceived personal benefit without risk to others.

Well, law did exist before the Constitution.

Certainly - but were rights existent before the Constitution?
According to its language, rights are natural and exist without any recognition. The coded recognition of rights and established derivative powers creating government does not claim to overcome any right - and assures us that all persons rights are to be treated equally; that the created government is NOT above the law, and cannot be above the rights from which its powers are derived.

If I can't do it to you, government may not do it to you at my request... Even if I'm the majority.
That's the purpose of Government - to assure equality by making all "rights" equal, regardless of who violates them...
Not to CREATE equality by eliminating rights altogether.

This is depression, Kalash. Sometimes it masquerades under philosophy, or in your case, a legal argument, but this is simply depression. There's more to 9-5 than the hours involved.

But if there are no rights to property, there are no rights to anything - and my depression is created by the feeling of enslavement by government despite laws protecting me against it.

The good news is that it is treatable, and the rates of success for treatment are very good. People find enjoyment and meaning in life, whether it's the sensation of food after a long fast, a hot shower after a workout, sex, love, reading and argument, pursuit of a goal, etc. That has nothing to do with whatever government we have. Nothing.

But I have meaning in life - to eliminate the criminal cabal that has replaced our legitimate Constitutional government and restore the rights of the people.
If I lose that fight, and no rights exist at all, there is no happiness to be had, as slavery may come with its momentary joys and pleasures - making it bearable - but this is not happiness, and no true happiness can ever be acquired so long as one is a slave.
The underlying dissatisfaction with one's state in life - as an inferior organism in treatment, if not in fact - prevents true happiness, and persistence in enforcing this class division (between "GOVERNMENT" with all rights and "the people" with none) is an ever present block to the "pursuit of happiness."

Well, I suggest to you that the "superficial" is actually quite meaningful. That you're not concerned about a job suggests to me that you don't grasp the connection between having an occupation and maintaining a sense of well-being.

No - I just don't have any desire to continue my well-being.
If I don't care about my well-being, I don't care about having a job.
But then - you'll just call this "depression" again to simplify it.

Yes, you will have a felony conviction on your record. Does this mean you're incapable of leading a happy, fulfilling, and productive life? No.

It isn't the felony conviction; its the meaning of defeat in proclaiming that I have rights that Government cannot take.
The conviction is meaningless - as it "denies me right" which are denied everyone else, as no person in America is free.
If there are no "rights" then there can be no "taking" of them through due process.

It is for THIS reason that I don't anticipate every having a happy or fulfilling life.
Productive, possibly, but to what end?
If I am productive - and those things are not mine by right, and the privilege of my productivity can be taken at any time for any reason, what purpose is there in being productive?

Crap. You trafficked in an illegal substance to make money. That's all.

I engaged in consensual contract with property I obtained honestly.
Why is this substance "illegal" and where is the authority - derivitive of the people's rights - to make any "thing" criminal to possess when the claimant has no RIGHT to the "thing" in question?

You have plenty of rights, and plenty of privileges. You DO own property, as do I. You simply were not entitled to own, and do commerce in, meth.

So ownership does not grant one the RIGHT to possess that which they own?
Only governmental consent grants one the RIGHT to possess something?
Then there is no RIGHT to property, as rights are beyond governmental abiltiy to control or diminish, and in particular, government cannot convert these rights tinto privilegs and license them to the people.

What exactly is the argument here? "Give me meth or give me death?" I'm not buying it Kalash. This is nothing but a grand rationalization for depression.

No - it's "recognize that I have certain unalienable rights that government cannot control nor alienate from me."
The "type of" property is irrelevant if one owns the property.
"You don't have PERMISSION from the state to own that..." doesn't cut it as the state has no RIGHT to deny that permission.
The authority is fictitious and fraudulent.

The claim is identical to that of me restricting your use of your property, or taking it from you because I wanted to "control" that property regardless that I had no RIGHT to control that property.

My faith in "The State" is gone. I'm no longer a believer.
Every person in this country is to be treated equally under the law - and that includes 3rd parties wearing badges claiming "control" over property they do not own, have never owned, and claim has no legitimate purpose.
Determining something's purpose is not the province of the state...
And if property can only be used for "legitimate recognized purposes" then all innovation is criminal.

The depths that this manner of thinking go take us to the darkest places of human history - of absolute governmental powers and the complete eradication of the people's rights.
If any "compelling state interest" is grounds for revoking the rights of the people, then there are no rights at all, including no right to life - and should government have a compelling interest to reduce the population, under your (and the Government's) line of reasoning, there is nothing WRONG with them doing this.

Yeah. Drug violence is all about an expression of a desire to be free. Total bullshit. It's about a desire to make money, period.

And without the licensing statute amounting to prohibition, there would be no money to be made selling drugs.
Again - the initiation of "cause" in the harms to society rests with Government itself.

Yeah, only the DEA kills people. Drug dealers are really just misunderstood libertarians. Who are you kidding?

The DEA does kill people that have done nothing other than protect interest in their property, and in the protection of their property from DEA agents, with guns, coming to take the property through violent force without compensation nor due process, drug dealers may kill a few people as well.
Theft, if not dealt with by government through civil processes, will be dealt with by use of force.
Again, government's willful negligence of the property rights of the people has caused a gaping hole in the protection of these rights bringing into existence the violence the laws proclaim to stand against.
Without the laws licensing the rights to possess and control drugs to the owners of those drugs, there would be no need for this violence.
Why do you hold drug dealers accountable for the Government's lack of responsibility?
They're doing what they need to do in order to protect their unalienable rights in face f oppression.

That government does not recognize certain things as property is irrelevant.
Refusing to recognize a right and violating it is the common theme among all criminals and psychopaths.

There are clear laws against the Government's enactment of the CSA. There are clear laws prohibiting the conduct necessary to arrest someone for possession of anything.
There are clear laws against denying someone any of their protected rights for having exercised one of their protected rights.
If there is no protected right to property, nor to pursue happiness without PERMISSION and LICENSE by the state, there is no legitimate government. The Constitutional contract with government has been breached, and government has invalidated its sole claim to any powers or authorities.
We're dealing with men and women. That's it. You've already stated that these actions, if done by individuals, would be criminal.
We are dealing with individuals - as government does not exist legitimately - and does not exist outside the law, regardless.
Why are these criminal acts going unpunished while non-offending persons engaged in something which the majority doesn't like are punished for offenses against no one?

 

[Heuristic]

I don't need to source my RIGHTS - they are inherent, natural, and secured to me as I am self-ruling and there is no higher authority on this earth that can take my rights nor convert them to privileges without my consent, or infringement upon the rights of another - in which case they may (and ought to) defend themselves from my advances.

You do need to find a LEGAL SOURCE for this right you speak of. Otherwise it's just a nice philosophical jaunt.

Government, however, must source it's authority - as its authority is in question. If the source of authority remains, as the Constitution states, "the rights of the people," then the authority it is claiming to exercise must be a diminished right inherent in myself.

The federal government has, via the interstate commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause.

You wish to argue that the power granted by these clauses is limited by your claimed natural right to property. But you have provided no legal source which describes such a right.

If I do not consent to relinquish this right - as there is no injured party with standing to bring a case against me (I cannot LEGALLY have a civil case brought against my for what I've done - yet somehow my acts are "worse than a mere civil matter" - this is something else I don't understand...) and no "crime" has been committed by which Due Process may initiation to deprive me of the right I am charged with having exercised - it cannot be taken...
As that is an unlawful initiation of force. It is crime itself.

Yes, it's a criminal case, not a civil case. There need not be any injured party.

How can one "pursue happiness" if he cannot acquire property? How can you be "free" or have liberty if you cannot possess that which you have labored for, created, or purchased? What right to life do you have if your property (fruits of your labor - your time) are not your own?
If you do not "own" your time, you cannot claim to own your life.

You can acquire all kinds of property, more than enough to live a happy and fulfilled life. You simply can't acquire certain kinds of property, such as nuclear weapons or, in some cases, controlled substances.

As "the people" have no ability to take property from their neighbor unless it is defense of their own rights, Government cannot have this power either.
Britain had (and continues to not have) and limitation on its powers, as the sovereignty is held by the Head-of-State - the monarchy.

My neighbor cannot tax me either. The government, legitimately, can. See the difference?

But taxation IS theft.
More specifically, it is extortion.
"Give us money, or we'll come after you with guns."
This is an outstanding threat against the people by government...
And it would do you well to learn your history and find out that the Federal government did NOT collect taxes when it was formed, nor did it in its first years of existence.

The federal government is specifically authorized to levy taxes. As far as whether it did so, see the Whiskey Rebellion.

Theft is the unlawful and intentional taking of another's property. Tax is a levy lawfully owed to government. If you do not like your taxes, then you have lawful mechanisms with which to address your grievance, or to petition for a change in the tax law.

You have the same mechanisms available with which to petition for a change in drug laws.

Thomas Jefferson commented on this during his second Inaugural address - stating that all was as it should be, for taxation was as clear a threat to the personal liberties secured by the constitution as a king.
Why is there a difference for the actions of government and the actions of a person?

Yes, but Jefferson also believed that government can and should tax. We need government to be able to do things which private individuals cannot in order for government to be effective.

This is slightly different in that the creation of a weapon of that nature can have no legitimate purpose that will not violate the rights of many against their will.
They are incomparable. If you're making a weapon it is reasonable to assume you intend to use the weapon. A nuclear weapon cannot be used without affecting the lives, liberty, and property of others.

Oh, but I made this weapon Kalash. I have an absolute, unqualified right to it. Sure, it may be put to harmful use. But I don't give you or the government the power to take it. So it's mine, right?

If a thing CAN be used for non-criminal purposes, government must tolerate that thing, as to not is a violation of the natural right to liberty; to use that thing for a perceived personal benefit without risk to others.

I made this nuclear weapon simply to see if I could. I regard it as a measure of my personal skills as a scientist. Also, it made for a very motivating project for my engineering class, who greatly profited (educationally) from the endeavor. Who are you to assume how an item of my property may be used or not? There are no qualifications on my right to own my creations, Kalash.

If I can't do it to you, government may not do it to you at my request... Even if I'm the majority.
That's the purpose of Government - to assure equality by making all "rights" equal, regardless of who violates them...
Not to CREATE equality by eliminating rights altogether.

Can you tax me? Can government? Exactly.

But if there are no rights to property, there are no rights to anything - and my depression is created by the feeling of enslavement by government despite laws protecting me against it.

You have rights to lots of property. Just not, in this case, controlled substances. Or nuclear weapons.

But I have meaning in life - to eliminate the criminal cabal that has replaced our legitimate Constitutional government and restore the rights of the people.

That's the only meaning you find in life? To put your conception of property rights into law? What about the rest of us?

No - I just don't have any desire to continue my well-being.
If I don't care about my well-being, I don't care about having a job.
But then - you'll just call this "depression" again to simplify it.

What would you call it?

It is for THIS reason that I don't anticipate every having a happy or fulfilling life.
Productive, possibly, but to what end?
If I am productive - and those things are not mine by right, and the privilege of my productivity can be taken at any time for any reason, what purpose is there in being productive?

To the purpose of being happy, Kalash. And your property cannot be taken at any time for any reason.

I engaged in consensual contract with property I obtained honestly.
Why is this substance "illegal" and where is the authority - derivitive of the people's rights - to make any "thing" criminal to possess when the claimant has no RIGHT to the "thing" in question?

Illegal contracts are void. The substance is illegal because it falls within the constitutional purview of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and the federal government has done so, in this instance by prohibiting your possession and sale of the substance.

The depths that this manner of thinking go take us to the darkest places of human history - of absolute governmental powers and the complete eradication of the people's rights.
If any "compelling state interest" is grounds for revoking the rights of the people, then there are no rights at all, including no right to life - and should government have a compelling interest to reduce the population, under your (and the Government's) line of reasoning, there is nothing WRONG with them doing this.

The 20th century has seen the greatest expansion of civil rights in history, Kalash, even while we broadened the ability of government to regulate property. We've come AWAY from the darkest places of human history.

Why do you hold drug dealers accountable for the Government's lack of responsibility?
They're doing what they need to do in order to protect their unalienable rights in face f oppression.

Yeah... it's not permitted to use lethal force to defend property you DO own lawfully. If you kill someone because he's driving off with your car, you're guilty of murder or manslaughter. So I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that it's okay for dealers to shoot federal agents in order to retain their property.

 

[Kalash]

Yeah... it's not permitted to use lethal force to defend property you DO own lawfully. If you kill someone because he's driving off with your car, you're guilty of murder or manslaughter. So I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that it's okay for dealers to shoot federal agents in order to retain their property.

If someone is coming into your home, you have a right to protect them, and use deadly force if met with deadly force.
DEA agents - armed men - coming into your home and demanding your property at gunpoint warrant deadly force.

You do need to find a LEGAL SOURCE for this right you speak of. Otherwise it's just a nice philosophical jaunt.

What source do I need other than nature?

Rights - as enacted in the Constitution - come from nature - and all powers of government flow from them.
To be fair, this is an abstract argument, but Locke - who's ideologies the founders used in creating the Constitution - states clearly that the only thing required to come into ownership of property is mixing one's efforts with resources in order to create something of value. At the moment of creation, ownership of that thing, created, is inherent in the individual, and all rights associated with ownership (The "bundle" of rights existent in "property") are, to the exclusion of all others, thus vested and secured.


If a right to control property does not exist, government cannot control property.
Property rights are a "bundle" of rights which include possession, use, exclusion, etc...
And the only authority over this bundle are regulations which do not amount to a "taking" of the property in question, in furtherance of a public interest - to prevent noxious use of the property - or, in an emergency, to destroy the property that would threaten the entire community if left intact (forest fires come to mind - which makes sense as we're mostly talking about "real" property here.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking#Regulatory_Restriction_on_Use_of_Property
A regulation resulting in a "taking" of the property is unconstitutional and must be struck down.
The "regulations" on drugs are not merely a "diminished ability" to use, or discard of the property in question, but are an ACTUAL PHYSICAL TAKING by governmental force in violation of every one of the rights in the bundle.
Exclusion is violated by government claiming to control property properly (if not lawfully) belonging to another.
Use is violated by government prohibiting possession - how can you use without possession - and not for any particular reason (compelling state interest to prevent noxious use), but in order to enact a prohibitive statute through regulation... In an exercise of legislated morality.

The federal government has, via the interstate commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause.

When I was reading a couple days ago, I fell in love with Hugo Black.
There is an emphasis on proper in the second clause which prohibits enactments which violate the Amendments.
A regulation amounting to prohibition - where government may "take" property due to some construction of legislative fiat converting the "property" into something else (contraband) is just such an enactment - it allows for government to TAKE any property of the people for their having simply possessed or created it.

There is a "prohibition" on the sales of Eagle parts - and this prohibition does not amount to a taking because people are not deprived of the property, only its ability to be sold.
The CSA, as a regulation, goes far beyond merely limiting one's "Right to dispose" in the bundle - it takes the bundle of RIGHTS and burns it, then blows the ashes to the wind.
If this regulation does not amount to a "taking" then I'm unsure what exactly we're talking about.

Ultimately we're talking about two separate property intersts here; one in the drugs, which were not created by government, acquired by due process, nor taken with just compensation.
The statute clearly is an Unconstitutional taking of property through legislative fiat, but there is another injury to the people being done here as well, the challenge of Government to the people's liberty; self-ownership.
While not exactly a "property" right, it is inconceivable that Government can proclaim that one has no right to themselves nor their actions, to include prohibition of alterations to one's body or mind which one engages in - to the detriment of no other - in order to engage in their absolute right to pursue happiness.

When the Harrison Tax Act was created, its purpose was clearly written as a revenue generating statute.
The act made it much harder to acquire marijuana, but the Supreme court upheld the law, as its purpose was not to prohibit nor discourage use of the drug.
The court made it very clear that if the intent of the statute were to prohibit or discourage the use of marijuana that the law would be struck down.
One could consider this a warning to Congress in an effort to enable them to create laws of discouragement and prohibition under the title of "raising revenue" however they altered course entirely, not risking a closer call in the rulings and "prohibited" and "discouraged through threats of violence" rather than threats of civil FINES, under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The intent of the statute is clear; to prohibit and discourage use through any means necessary, even use of deadly force - which Government, in its quest to uphold the statute, has used against the people of this nation in the exercise of control over their property.

The laws are not against "malum in se" acts, as the court would have you believe, but against the achievement of a social betterment through providing a good or service to The People of this nation, meeting adequate demand that can only be considered engagement of The People in their pursuit of happiness.
U.S. v. Balint

Many instances of this are to be found in regulatory measures in the exercise of what is called the police power where the emphasis of the statute is evidently upon achievement of some social betterment rather than the punishment of the crimes as in cases of mala in se.

As the statute does not proscribe an act which is mala in se, but is an act prohibited by "taking" the property rights from the owner and criminalizing their exercise without compensation nor due process, the statue itself cannot be held to be Constitutionally valid.

. Mere possession of the drug creates no presumption of guilt as against any other person. [268 U.S. 5, 19] In United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 93, 95 S., 39 S. Ct. 214

Yet possession is equally criminal under the CSA, further demeaning any tangible legitimacy it may claim.

The Narcotic Law is essentially a revenue measure and its provisions must be reasonably applied with the primary view of enforcing the special tax. We find no facts alleged in the indictment sufficient to show that petitioner had done anything falling within definite inhibitions or sufficient materially to imperil orderly collection of revenue from sales. Federal power is delegated, and its prescribed limits must not be transcended even though the end seems desirable. LINDER v. UNITED STATES. No. 183.

You wish to argue that the power granted by these clauses is limited by your claimed natural right to property. But you have provided no legal source which describes such a right.

I know no legal source of "right" by which what I create may come to be my possession... This happens of its own accord.
I know no legal source of "right" to things I possess to the exclusion of others, coming with a natural inquiring for permission to use, take, or enjoy partaking in any use of my possessions which may render them unusable to me, or violate the clause of "exclusion" which is inherent in property ownership.
As these things occur naturally, and the acquisition of property through consent of another is the only viable means of coming to own something I know of, and then converting those things one has acquired to one's own use or creative agendas increasing the value of what one has come to possess, I see no need for a "legal authority" to engage in such activities.
If a legal authority is necessary, then the rights apparent to be by nature and social construct created by mere possession via consent of the owner whom has withdrawn all claims of ownership, or the amassing of resources and mixing them with my efforts to creating something of value for which I may consensually engage in commerce with others are all "false" rights, and there is no way for any natural right of property to exist.
If rights are derived from Law, then Law must exist prior to those rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that this is not the case; that rights DO exist without law, and that law is created for the singular purpose to secure those rights to those possessing them.
If the law refuses to recognize any natural right to property than that law is certainly destructive of the rights it was created to protect and must be altered or abolished that liberty may once again be claimed by the people with rights that require no source in law.

Yes, it's a criminal case, not a civil case. There need not be any injured party.

So a civil case is surely where all serious and awful crimes must be placed...
As murder involves an injured party, but criminal law requires none... only civil law.
Theft involves an injured party, but criminal law requires none...
Rape involves an injured party, but criminal law requires none...

This claim - first by Government, though worded so as to misguide one's thoughts by stating that the "crime" was committed "against Government" giving the prosecutor Standing - and now, by you, appears more and more ridiculous as time goes by.
In a civil suit, a party must be harmed, but there's no such requirement when one's live, liberty, and property are on the line - you don't have to harm anyone in order to give government the power to deprive you of all these things in legal proceedings....
Harm to another is only required when your money, alone, is at risk.

If this is the state of affairs in this nation today, we're worse off than even I believed.

You can acquire all kinds of property, more than enough to live a happy and fulfilled life. You simply can't acquire certain kinds of property, such as nuclear weapons or, in some cases, controlled substances.

And all that need be done is Government criminalizing your acquisition, and again your property is forfeit - and again - your liberty is taken as you're placed into prison.
And this is ALL OK under the Constitution. :blink :blink

My neighbor cannot tax me either. The government, legitimately, can. See the difference?

ABSOLUTELY I see the difference!
Direct taxation was prohibited to the Federal Government! That "right" to not be taxed was taken via due process of law via the 16th Amendment.
No such "due process" has been undertaken by which drugs may be "taken" by governmental control eliminating exclusion, possession, use, and the rest of the property right bundle while relating to ANY property.
Drugs, despite claims of Government, remain PROPERTY.
Takings can be done ONLY when the property taken is to be given to public use (which is not being done in the case of drugs) and through due process of law or just compensation.
Absolutely there is a difference!

The difference is "due process of law" by which our "money" has been LAWFULLY taken under Constitutional limitations on Governmental powers!

The federal government is specifically authorized to levy taxes. As far as whether it did so, see the Whiskey Rebellion.

Theft is the unlawful and intentional taking of another's property. Tax is a levy lawfully owed to government. If you do not like your taxes, then you have lawful mechanisms with which to address your grievance, or to petition for a change in the tax law.

Again - DUE PROCESS.
Where's the due process by which Government lays claim to MY DRUGS?

You have the same mechanisms available with which to petition for a change in drug laws.

Or I can rely on Caselaw and engage in teh exercise of my rights with impunity as the laws prohibiting my conduct are clearly unconstitutional.

Back to the meth v. MDMA issue - MDMA WAS challenged by the community, and the Administrative Law Judge Young made it VERY clear that MDMA could not LEGALLY be placed higher than schedule III.
Administrator Lawn chose to IGNORE THE LAW and place MDMA in schedule I anyway.
The court's continued contentions are that Judge Young's ruling was not binding upon Government.
I find that to be irrelevant, as the ruling did not "bind" Administrator Lawn to any act other than review of the policy, but DID clearly PROHIBIT SINGULAR CONDUCT which was to be UNLAWFUL - CRIMINAL - and to serve as a warning, not an ORDER that would be not suffice as it would not be binding.

And here we have the crux of the whole argument;
Prohibition is a GREATER CRIME than disobedience of a regulatory statute.
Prohibition is the taking of property without ownership, via violent means.
Prohibition is NOT a delegated power of Government, nor is it vested in any agent or agency of Government.
Prohibition can only take place through DUE PROCESS OF LAW - and was done so once - through the 18th Amendment.
Without this requisite due process, any TAKING of drugs under these statutes is a CRIMINAL violation of the people's rights to their property...
Even if it is done under Color of Law (false "right" of law when no "right" to deprive anyone of their property - TAKINGS prohibited by the 5th Amendment except per its provisions.)

Yes, but Jefferson also believed that government can and should tax. We need government to be able to do things which private individuals cannot in order for government to be effective.

STATEIST!
May that one day hold the same negative connotation as does the word, "RACIST!" today.
I see no need for any power greater than the rights of the people... and the collective rights given by consent cannot overcome the single dissenting party.
No "state" is necessary, but people have grown so accustomed to servitude and subjugation by others that they no longer question their status in life - which prohibits the "attainment of a social betterment" - and are willing to fight and die in order to protect the "State" which has subjugated them.

"We're fighting "THEM" over "there" so that we don't have to fight "THEM" over here..."
Eliminate the State and you eliminate the single most destructive meme in the world.
No, the state is not NECESSARY, but social conventions and a means of protecting rights equally must exist.
That this can be done without a state has been established on small scales.
If it can be established globally without a state is yet to be seen, but someday, I hope to see this accomplished.

Oh, but I made this weapon Kalash. I have an absolute, unqualified right to it. Sure, it may be put to harmful use. But I don't give you or the government the power to take it. So it's mine, right?

Your right to use it IS qualified in that it may not infringe upon the rights of anyone else (noxious use).
That said, what purpose do you have for it that will not infringe upon the rights of anyone else?

I made this nuclear weapon simply to see if I could. I regard it as a measure of my personal skills as a scientist. Also, it made for a very motivating project for my engineering class, who greatly profited (educationally) from the endeavor. Who are you to assume how an item of my property may be used or not? There are no qualifications on my right to own my creations, Kalash.

Absolutely - however in this instance, you are not the property owner, as the school's funds would have paid for the materials, not you.
The qualifications on your right to your creations exists where the rights of others begin.

There are lawful limits in place.
Deprivation of property when another's rights are not directly being infringed nor threatened is not a lawful limit on property ownership/possession/use.

Can you tax me? Can government? Exactly.

Due process of law, dude...
Due process of law. 16th Amendment was a technical deprivation of all property through a taxing enabling form of due process.
Taxation remains armed robbery - of that there is no question - but it is armed robbery done in accordance with the law of the land.
Prohibition if a taking of property NOT in accordance with the law of the land.


You have rights to lots of property. Just not, in this case, controlled substances. Or nuclear weapons.

That's the only meaning you find in life? To put your conception of property rights into law? What about the rest of us?

The only purpose I personally have in life right now is to have property rights recognized by an acknowledged inferior government that serves only to protect the rights of the people.
The only limits on any right will be the violation of another's rights.

Without RIGHTS, I find there to be no purpose... no meaning...
As all is drawn out by "the governing agent" controlling all "rights".
If I exist merely at the pleasure of this controlling agency - and they determine my purpose...
I am not my own, and I despise those controlling me...
And I have no desire to live THEIR purpose.
So no, I have no purpose if I fail to fulfill my question to overcome those that would control us all.

What would you call it?

Idealist defeatism.
Or defeatist idealism.
Or something like that.

Rather than ego death, it's "meme" death - and it's trying to take me with it.

To the purpose of being happy, Kalash. And your property cannot be taken at any time for any reason.

No, it can't... but any reason can be created, and apparently, no matter how illogical, my property can, and will, be taken by violent force if the majority wills it...



Illegal contracts are void. The substance is illegal because it falls within the constitutional purview of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and the federal government has done so, in this instance by prohibiting your possession and sale of the substance.

The 20th century has seen the greatest expansion of civil rights in history, Kalash, even while we broadened the ability of government to regulate property. We've come AWAY from the darkest places of human history.

To trade one darkness for another in no way means that you have come into the light.
We may not have fallen back into the total darkness of our past, but we are running towards it by allowing government to regulate property outside constraints of the law (the Constitutional grants of power from the rights of the people)

Moving from a monarchy to an oligarchy is, in no way, progress.
So long as a group - or the "will of the collective" can strike out and destroy the lives, liberty, or property of any individual, we have not made significant ground.

So long as society accepts any sort of "compelling interest" clause by which any and all of their rights may be stripped from them without notice nor chance to defend against this deprivation, we, as citizens of any society - local, state, national, global, or otherwise - cannot consider ourselves "free" - only privileged.

If I have a compelling interest in your television, and I take it from you, this does not excuse my having taken your property without your permission.
Government must be held to the same standard. Property can only be seized when an immediate threat exists, or an actual act of crime has been committed.
Until then, Government cannot be "above the law" if it is to uphold the law and ensure equal protections to the people.

 

[Heuristic]

If someone is coming into your home, you have a right to protect them, and use deadly force if met with deadly force.
DEA agents - armed men - coming into your home and demanding your property at gunpoint warrant deadly force.

Not to protect your property you don't. You have a right to protect your life, or that of another, in some instances, by the use of deadly force; you never have the right to use deadly force to defend possession of property. Sorry. In this country we value human life above property.

What source do I need other than nature?

For obvious reasons we'd prefer not to allow judges to divine from nature rights they think human beings have. As far as citing nature, no, that won't do it. Not in a legal forum.

This is your argument, Kalash:

Government has been granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, and this has been construed by the courts to include the power to to regulate forms of economic activity, including manufacture and intra-state commerce, which might substantially affect interstate commerce. BUT, this power is limited by my right to possess whatever I create. This right is recognized via the 9th and 14th amendments, because they [say what?] and is support by [cases?].

The problem is that the right you need to exist, doesn't exist.

Rights - as enacted in the Constitution - come from nature - and all powers of government flow from them.
To be fair, this is an abstract argument, but Locke - who's ideologies the founders used in creating the Constitution - states clearly that the only thing required to come into ownership of property is mixing one's efforts with resources in order to create something of value. At the moment of creation, ownership of that thing, created, is inherent in the individual, and all rights associated with ownership (The "bundle" of rights existent in "property") are, to the exclusion of all others, thus vested and secured.

Locke also believed that property can and should be regulated for the common good. So did the founders. So did the colonial governments. Do did the British government.

If a right to control property does not exist, government cannot control property.

Well, on a social contract theory, the idea is that you yourself are giving up certain rights to the government, including, in your example, the right to control everything you happen to somehow create. I personally don't think social contract gets us very far, but if that's the theory you're using, then that's how it works.

A regulation resulting in a "taking" of the property is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

Nope. Instead the injured individual can sue for compensation--and sometimes win. The regulations aren't struck down as unconstitutional.

The "regulations" on drugs are not merely a "diminished ability" to use, or discard of the property in question, but are an ACTUAL PHYSICAL TAKING by governmental force in violation of every one of the rights in the bundle.

Except that a person is entitled to compensation only when government deprives him of property he lawfully owns; or, in the case of regulation that amounts to a taking, deprives him of all economic use of lawfully owned property.

It does NOT mean that you can say "hey, government prohibits me from possessing MDMA, using my wetlands property as an industrial site, etc., so I'm going to acquire this property, and then when government comes in and tells me to stop, I'm going to sue government for compensation." Surely you see why such a scheme would be absurd.

I know no legal source of "right" by which what I create may come to be my possession... This happens of its own accord.

Possession is not the same as ownership.

I know no legal source of "right" to things I possess to the exclusion of others, coming with a natural inquiring for permission to use, take, or enjoy partaking in any use of my possessions which may render them unusable to me, or violate the clause of "exclusion" which is inherent in property ownership.
As these things occur naturally, and the acquisition of property through consent of another is the only viable means of coming to own something I know of, and then converting those things one has acquired to one's own use or creative agendas increasing the value of what one has come to possess, I see no need for a "legal authority" to engage in such activities.

The fact that upon creating something, that something is in your physical possession, is just as natural as the fact that someone, by pointing a gun at your head and taking your creation, now possesses it instead.

So I don't see where appeals to nature get us.

If a legal authority is necessary, then the rights apparent to be by nature and social construct created by mere possession via consent of the owner whom has withdrawn all claims of ownership, or the amassing of resources and mixing them with my efforts to creating something of value for which I may consensually engage in commerce with others are all "false" rights, and there is no way for any natural right of property to exist.
If rights are derived from Law, then Law must exist prior to those rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that this is not the case; that rights DO exist without law, and that law is created for the singular purpose to secure those rights to those possessing them.
If the law refuses to recognize any natural right to property than that law is certainly destructive of the rights it was created to protect and must be altered or abolished that liberty may once again be claimed by the people with rights that require no source in law.

I don't see any support in our legal tradition for the kind of absolute property right you claim exists--or any other legal tradition. It's not enough to say "well it's self-evident to me by nature." That's great. To some people, it's self-evident that abortion is murder; to other people, it's self-evident that a Christian God exists and fornicators are going to hell unless they sincerely repent before dying.

Certainly the complete absence of ANY society on earth which recognizes such an absolute and broad right to property indicates that you are wrong that it must be self-evident.

So a civil case is surely where all serious and awful crimes must be placed...
As murder involves an injured party, but criminal law requires none... only civil law.
Theft involves an injured party, but criminal law requires none...
Rape involves an injured party, but criminal law requires none...

Civil suits in our country are designed to allow the victim to gain compensation for his injuries. Criminal prosecutions are designed to punish the offender, and deter possible future offenders; they have nothing to do with compensating any victims. Thus it does not matter, in the case of criminal prosecutions, whether there is an actual victim we can point to.

And all that need be done is Government criminalizing your acquisition, and again your property is forfeit - and again - your liberty is taken as you're placed into prison.
And this is ALL OK under the Constitution. :blink :blink

Sure. Conceivably government can levy a 100% income tax. Government can institute a draft tomorrow as well. Our defense against such things is the democratic process. It's not very likely that government will levy such an income tax, or institute a draft tomorrow. It's possible, I suppose. It's also possible that I'll contract a rare disease and die in the next several hours. Nonetheless, I'm going to finish my post here and enjoy my coffee.

Direct taxation was prohibited to the Federal Government! That "right" to not be taxed was taken via due process of law via the 16th Amendment.
No such "due process" has been undertaken by which drugs may be "taken" by governmental control eliminating exclusion, possession, use, and the rest of the property right bundle while relating to ANY property.
Drugs, despite claims of Government, remain PROPERTY.
Takings can be done ONLY when the property taken is to be given to public use (which is not being done in the case of drugs) and through due process of law or just compensation.
Absolutely there is a difference!

Yes. A taking occurs when you lawfully owned the property in question before the regulation or seizure was effected. You did not lawfully own the MDMA.

Prohibition is a GREATER CRIME than disobedience of a regulatory statute.
Prohibition is the taking of property without ownership, via violent means.
Prohibition is NOT a delegated power of Government, nor is it vested in any agent or agency of Government.
Prohibition can only take place through DUE PROCESS OF LAW - and was done so once - through the 18th Amendment.
Without this requisite due process, any TAKING of drugs under these statutes is a CRIMINAL violation of the people's rights to their property...
Even if it is done under Color of Law (false "right" of law when no "right" to deprive anyone of their property - TAKINGS prohibited by the 5th Amendment except per its provisions.)

Well, I don't see any such limitation placed on the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. There's nothing in there that says "yes, regulate interstate commerce, but do not prohibit ownership of anything." So I find your argument unpersuasive.

And of course local governments can, and still do, practice prohibition of alcohol in various parts of the country.

STATEIST!
May that one day hold the same negative connotation as does the word, "RACIST!" today.
I see no need for any power greater than the rights of the people... and the collective rights given by consent cannot overcome the single dissenting party.
No "state" is necessary, but people have grown so accustomed to servitude and subjugation by others that they no longer question their status in life - which prohibits the "attainment of a social betterment" - and are willing to fight and die in order to protect the "State" which has subjugated them.

I don't feel the least bit subjugated Kalash. I don't like paying taxes, or tolls, but I don't think that amounts to subjugation. Nor do I view my inability to start my own little MDMA shop the equivalent of subjugation.

Taxation remains armed robbery - of that there is no question - but it is armed robbery done in accordance with the law of the land.
Prohibition if a taking of property NOT in accordance with the law of the land.

Robbery is a legal term. Taxation doesn't qualify.

The only purpose I personally have in life right now is to have property rights recognized by an acknowledged inferior government that serves only to protect the rights of the people.
The only limits on any right will be the violation of another's rights.

You've yet to convince me that such a right exists. I think it's well established that it doesn't exist in our law.

Without RIGHTS, I find there to be no purpose... no meaning...
As all is drawn out by "the governing agent" controlling all "rights".
If I exist merely at the pleasure of this controlling agency - and they determine my purpose...
I am not my own, and I despise those controlling me...
And I have no desire to live THEIR purpose.
So no, I have no purpose if I fail to fulfill my question to overcome those that would control us all.

So you can live your life along many different avenues Kalash. You can go to Costa Rica and become a surfing instructor; you can go to a university and get a PhD and teach; you can collect garbage; you can write; you can run for office; you can paint; compose and play music; marry and love whatever adult you choose (so long as feelings are reciprocated); start your own business (just not in controlled substances); etc.

So this nonsense that because government can regulate property, life has no meaning and you have no freedom? Sorry. Check out life under a real totalitarian, or corrupt, system before you start feeling sorry for yourself under this one.

Idealist defeatism.
Or defeatist idealism.
Or something like that.

Right, anything but the name of a condition which can be treated. Understand that there are plenty of libertarians who do not feel that life lacks meaning. You can go on being anti-statist to your heart's content while still deriving pleasure and meaning from your life.

To trade one darkness for another in no way means that you have come into the light.
We may not have fallen back into the total darkness of our past, but we are running towards it by allowing government to regulate property outside constraints of the law (the Constitutional grants of power from the rights of the people)

Let's see. 1909. Child labor. No minimum standards of safety in the workplace. Women cannot vote. In much of the country, male citizens of African descent cannot vote. Freedom of speech sharply curtailed. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., all openly ascribed to.

2009. Laws against child labor. Laws providing for minimum standards of safety in the workplace. Just about every adult citizen can vote. Freedom of speech has the strongest protections in history. Racism, sexism, homophobia, are all widely condemned and on the decline. Life expectancy continues to lengthen. Treatments against various diseases and ailments continue to expand.

Exactly what darkness are we running towards, Kalash?

If I have a compelling interest in your television, and I take it from you, this does not excuse my having taken your property without your permission.
Government must be held to the same standard. Property can only be seized when an immediate threat exists, or an actual act of crime has been committed.
Until then, Government cannot be "above the law" if it is to uphold the law and ensure equal protections to the people.

Government represents the people. You do not. That is the difference.

 

[Kalash]

Government has been granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, and this has been construed by the courts to include the power to to regulate forms of economic activity, including manufacture and intra-state commerce, which might substantially affect interstate commerce. BUT, this power is limited by my right to possess whatever I create. This right is recognized via the 9th and 14th amendments, because they [say what?] and is support by [cases?].

And again, those regulations must be in concert with the limits on governmental power.
A regulation amounting to a "taking" is not valid unless compensation or due process is provided prior to the "taking" - and as the statute itself amounts to the taking (deprivation of all economic and/or use rights), the requisite due process and compensation clearly come AFTER the taking, moving the enactment to a period where it is in direct conflict with the 5th Amendment.

Locke also believed that property can and should be regulated for the common good. So did the founders. So did the colonial governments. So did the British government.

But the nature of these regulations were confined to the Constitutional limits in the States.
The British Government rules by divine right, they need not acknowledge any right of any citizen. Their citizenry has no rights.

The regulations proposed by Locke and the founders were limits on use that would negatively affect society - noxious use, or destructive use of property.
The regulations in the CSA oppose no such destructive or noxious use, but ALL use without any "need" or "threat" to society existing.

Well, on a social contract theory, the idea is that you yourself are giving up certain rights to the government, including, in your example, the right to control everything you happen to somehow create. I personally don't think social contract gets us very far, but if that's the theory you're using, then that's how it works.

But the rights are not "given up" as you claim, they are utilized to devise powers government may exercise that do not exceed the rights of any other party.
The rights remain inherent and vested in the people themselves - limited privileged powers are vested in the created Government.

And again - no provision of the Constitution allows any branch of Government to exceed any RIGHT of ANY person.
No power beyond MY ability can be exercised by government. As I cannot take your property for reasons that do not affect my personal life, liberty, or property, neither can Government take that which does not belong to my through my insistence that they "Control" that which I do not own for my won benefit or reasoning.

Nope. Instead the injured individual can sue for compensation--and sometimes win. The regulations aren't struck down as unconstitutional.

It depends on the regulation.
If a taking is done for any reason other than public use, and no compensation is given, the regulation is unconstitutional.
Whether it be struck down in part or entirely is up to the courts, but the regulation itself cannot hold up to the Constitution... and as the Constitution is the supreme law, just as the Federal laws trump State laws in medical marijuana cases, the constitution trumps enactments of the Federal government.

Except that a person is entitled to compensation only when government deprives him of property he lawfully owns; or, in the case of regulation that amounts to a taking, deprives him of all economic use of lawfully owned property.

And lawful ownership is a fiction.
The LAW cannot "grant" ownership rights to a person... only ownership of the property grants those rights.
The law, again, cannot be used to deny nor diminish rights inherent in ownership itself...
Regulations can restrain certain exercise of those rights, so long as the regulation does not amount to a "Taking" and if a "taking" does occur, it must be done "for public use" and the owner must be compensated.
Government cannot simply dissolve ownership and claim that any "taking" is no longer in violation of the 5th amendment protections because the ownership is "not recognized by law" - such a thing is ridiculous, as the language of the 5th amendment is clearly written as a prohibition on powers of government from creating such a law.

We are not talking about a restricted use here - we're talking about complete deprivation of one's rights to their property.
If any law can be made converting property into something else, the 5th amendment (and the 4th, and 3rd...) secure nothing to the people.
If a legislative act "regulating" housing makes it "unlawful" to possess, manufacture, or distribute housing, you hold that this regulation has rendered all "ownership" of houses "unlawful" and therefore no compensation nor just process is necessary for Government to take any home from anyone.

That this does not amount to a "taking" is beyond me - as it is the "taking of the rights" that amounts to the deprivation - not strictly a "taking of the property."

Again - ownership rights cannot be created nor eliminated through the legislature; only due process of law.

It does NOT mean that you can say "hey, government prohibits me from possessing MDMA, using my wetlands property as an industrial site, etc., so I'm going to acquire this property, and then when government comes in and tells me to stop, I'm going to sue government for compensation." Surely you see why such a scheme would be absurd.

Surely so.
But this isn't the case. Government prohibits the exercise of property rights over MDMA. Such rights are beyond its reach to prohibit.
Ownership is not eliminated though all rights of ownership be abrogated by "law" restricting or eliminating the engagement in rights secured through ownership of the property in question.
So long as ownership - lawful or otherwise - exists, certain rights to property exist. The question is whether the law can eliminate ownership without due process nor just compensation.
The answer has been, clearly, no.
The engagement in certain rights relevant to ownership may be restricted so long as complete loss of the property - or its value - is not done by law.
The CSA does not "restrict" the rights of drug owners, it "takes" those rights and Government claims to exercise those rights itself - not to merely limit the exercise of those rights to serve the public interest, nor to devote the property to public use.
In this manner the law goes too far.

Possession is not the same as ownership.

No - possession is a RIGHT derived from ownership - as are the rights to control, use, and discard the property.
Unless "ownership" of drugs is criminalized (which it is not, only the derivative rights to possess, manufacture (mix with one's efforts), and distribute are criminalized.
Regulations limiting distribution are fine.
Regulations "taking" property by criminalizing its possession is not adequate due process to overcome the rights of ownership themselves, enabling government to take the property by force.

If making a law against any type of property is sufficient to deprive anyone of that property, the 5th amendment is meaningless, and there are no constraints upon the legislative powers.

The fact that upon creating something, that something is in your physical possession, is just as natural as the fact that someone, by pointing a gun at your head and taking your creation, now possesses it instead.

Absolutely. The law is unnatural in that it protects the interest in the creation by keeping it with the creator in face of violent oppression which would deprive him of his property without due process nor just compensation.

For the law, which is supposed to equally protect the creator's rights from that violent infringement, to take up arms and commit deprivation of property itself is abuse of the law in violation of the Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

So I don't see where appeals to nature get us.

The appeal to nature is in the creation of the right itself.
There is no "right" to infringe upon the rights of others. This has been done, through force, but if force in violation of another is not crime, then why have crimes at all?
That rights spring forth from nature is the only possible fount from them to flow, as any other source is man-made, and a man-made right bestowed upon another man is not a "right" but a privilged grant to that which the privilege-granter already has rights to.
Those rights, if they exist, must be sourced somewhere outside the man - to include outside the creations of men.
As government is a creation of men, it cannot be the "source of rights" - and if it is not the source, it cannot violate rights it does not create itself - or its actions are crimes.

I don't see any support in our legal tradition for the kind of absolute property right you claim exists--or any other legal tradition. It's not enough to say "well it's self-evident to me by nature." That's great. To some people, it's self-evident that abortion is murder; to other people, it's self-evident that a Christian God exists and fornicators are going to hell unless they sincerely repent before dying.

What is the source of property rights then?
If I create something, where does my right to that thing come from?
If Government's purpose is to secure my right to that thing, Government cannot also be the source of that right - as the right existed prior to the creation of government (according to the language of the preamble to the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of independence, and the preamble to the Bill of Rights).

Certainly the complete absence of ANY society on earth which recognizes such an absolute and broad right to property indicates that you are wrong that it must be self-evident.

No, it remains self evident. That government tends towards tyranny, as all power corrupts and will eventually become destructive in its purpose is also natural and self evident.
The people were remiss in their task of vigilance by which Government may be kept in check, ensuring the security of their rights from Governmental seizures.
The people are now paying for their lazy attitudes towards their rights, and have lost them completely.
This does not mean those rights are not derived from nature, but that Government - in its natural course - has come to no longer recognize rights of nature and has become destructive of the rights it was tasked with protecting.

This again is all laid out in the founding documents.
Defending Governmental aggression against people that are not in violation of another's rights is defending a criminal organization that holds itself above the law.
In this way, the Law of the Land... the Rule of Law... has been lost.

Civil suits in our country are designed to allow the victim to gain compensation for his injuries. Criminal prosecutions are designed to punish the offender, and deter possible future offenders; they have nothing to do with compensating any victims. Thus it does not matter, in the case of criminal prosecutions, whether there is an actual victim we can point to.

That still doesn't make sense.
How can an offense exist if there is no victim? An offense requires a right which has been abrogated by a specific act.
If there is no offense, there can be no criminal case.
No victim, no crime.
Spooner; http://lysanderspooner.com - Vices Are Not Crimes (under "Works")

Sure. Conceivably government can levy a 100% income tax. Government can institute a draft tomorrow as well. Our defense against such things is the democratic process. It's not very likely that government will levy such an income tax, or institute a draft tomorrow. It's possible, I suppose. It's also possible that I'll contract a rare disease and die in the next several hours. Nonetheless, I'm going to finish my post here and enjoy my coffee.

Our defense against such things is the Constitution.
The democratic process has been turned into a farce - where the privileges bestowed upon group A are challenged and requested by group B, but government has no authority under the Rule of Law to give either group a privilege to begin with.
Our defense was to be "eternal vigilance" of governmental acts to secure against its abuses.
Yet now we have abuses, and are told to tolerate them because "we have the democratic process" and no "rights" in fact, only "rights" as determined (and granted/revoked) by Government in abuse of its powers without adherence to the Rule of Law, nor its proper function.

Yes. A taking occurs when you lawfully owned the property in question before the regulation or seizure was effected. You did not lawfully own the MDMA.

But neither did Government.
And Government cannot exercise a legal right (to control) property which it does not lawfully own.

Well, I don't see any such limitation placed on the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. There's nothing in there that says "yes, regulate interstate commerce, but do not prohibit ownership of anything." So I find your argument unpersuasive.

The limit comes from the rights of the people.
I cannot prohibit you from possessing nor acquiring anything which you so desire so long as it does not violate nor threaten my rights.
I cannot grant this power to government, if governmental powers are derived from my rights.
Neither can the majority.
This limit is also self-evident, but the abuses of government have become common place, and are ignored - defended even - by those suffering under these abuses.

And of course local governments can, and still do, practice prohibition of alcohol in various parts of the country.

And this is an exercise of the Police Powers, not regulatory powers - there are no police powers vested in the Federal Government (as all its powers are enumerated).
The constitution and the Constitutions of the states can clearly prohibit this prohibition, however, again, this is an abuse which has been tolerated so long that it is no longer seen as an abuse; as an attack upon freedom.
Longevity of an abuse is not grounds to defend and cling to the abuser, but to listen to those encouraging you to leave - and cast off those which would abuse you and the powers you give them over yourself.

I don't feel the least bit subjugated Kalash. I don't like paying taxes, or tolls, but I don't think that amounts to subjugation. Nor do I view my inability to start my own little MDMA shop the equivalent of subjugation.

And you feel free though you are a slave.
That which you work for is not your own... But another's. You recognize their claim to this work - your property - and even contend that should they so choose, they could take it ALL (100% taxation).
You feel free through force of habit and indoctrination into the lies.
This does not make you free, nor does it remove the control over yourself and your labor.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/subjection -
Subjection; the act or process of bringing someone or something under oneʼs control
If government controls property, rights, and your labor - you are subjected by Government.
This is entirely inconsistent with the idea of distributed sovereignty - as no citizen of America is a subject (by law) of Government.
The citizenry, therefore - and their rights, labor, and property - are incapable of being placed under Governmental control.
Least the Constitution mean nothing, and every right believed to be held by the people themselves fall to ruin, and a nation of slaves be born.

Robbery is a legal term. Taxation doesn't qualify.

Theft is the taking of another's property without their consent.
Taxation qualifies if the taxed do not consent.

You've yet to convince me that such a right exists. I think it's well established that it doesn't exist in our law.

And again, I challenge the law itself.
The law is not above challenge, and it is clearly operating in a manner which the Constitution never intended it to.

So you can live your life along many different avenues Kalash. You can go to Costa Rica and become a surfing instructor; you can go to a university and get a PhD and teach; you can collect garbage; you can write; you can run for office; you can paint; compose and play music; marry and love whatever adult you choose (so long as feelings are reciprocated); start your own business (just not in controlled substances); etc.

And you claim this is freedom...
Yet there are claimants above all these things.
I cannot run for office - as a felon.
I cannot vote nor partake in the democratic process.
I cannot start a business without a license.
I remain subjected to a controlling agency - Government.
I and still not FREE.
Whether you FEEL free or not is irrelevant. A slave can be content in their existence - and even experience some happiness, but this does not change their status as a slave.

So this nonsense that because government can regulate property, life has no meaning and you have no freedom? Sorry. Check out life under a real totalitarian, or corrupt, system before you start feeling sorry for yourself under this one.

A lesser evil placed next to a greater evil may certainly be more appealing, but why suffer for evil at all?

Right, anything but the name of a condition which can be treated. Understand that there are plenty of libertarians who do not feel that life lacks meaning. You can go on being anti-statist to your heart's content while still deriving pleasure and meaning from your life.

Absolutely. I can content myself with being enslaved and work towards pursuing happiness in the knowledge that I remain a subject of "the servant" - that the people are no longer the master, and that no rights exist...
That I have been forced out of my house by those I have hired and entrusted my life, liberty, and property - and they have thrown me out into the streets with nothing left.
But yes - I can find meaning and be happy.

I can absolutely enjoy the little things in life - but this is not true happiness, and that true happiness has been taken by me by Government, not any sort of internal dilemma.
Depression can be cured - but sometimes the cure (ignorance or numbness from the corrective drugs) is worse than the disease (knowledge of the state of affairs and an inability to effect changes necessary to correct course)

Let's see. 1909. Child labor. No minimum standards of safety in the workplace. Women cannot vote. In much of the country, male citizens of African descent cannot vote. Freedom of speech sharply curtailed. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., all openly ascribed to.

And there was no equality under the law.
No special regulations were necessary - only a declaration that all "men" are created equal - and that by "men" what is meant is any member of the human race regardless of gender, creed, color, origin, etc...
But no - it's better to enact laws creating privileged classes, destroying any hope of equality by creating false structures of law protecting those that are not seen as equals, and only these people, making sure that everyone knows they are "less than human - not persons with rights" but are something inferior that requires a special protection under a special law, as they do not have equal rights to the rest of us...
But we have to respect them as though they did.

2009. Laws against child labor. Laws providing for minimum standards of safety in the workplace. Just about every adult citizen can vote. Freedom of speech has the strongest protections in history. Racism, sexism, homophobia, are all widely condemned and on the decline. Life expectancy continues to lengthen. Treatments against various diseases and ailments continue to expand.

And how many of these things were "done by law" and how many of these things were done by social progression alone?
I stand with Ron Paul on the race issue - we have progressed not BECAUSE of the laws, but despite them.
Credit for scientific advancements are not to be given to Government... particularly when their regulation of things prohibits any "unauthorized (unlawful)" advancement of knowledge or technology.

Exactly what darkness are we running towards, Kalash?

One World Government under the rule of an entity such as the U.N. with a facade Constitution.
One in which the people are subjugated as surely as they were subjects of a King.
Erm. Is that where that word comes from?
One unquestionable Government, tolerating free speech, but retaining the ability to snuff it out (prohibit any "negative press" or "pictures" regarding Iraq) when there is a compelling state interest...
A compelling state interest cannot trump any human right - be it to life, liberty, or property.
If any state interest can trump that right, it is no right at all, but a privilege.
If life itself is a privilege, we are certainly entering a dark age equal to that of the original dark ages, which, if I recall correctly, were a time of subjects and God-Kings - sovereigns with full control over the lives, labors, and liberties of their subjects.
Certainly there is no difference between a God-King and a collective body when they are both above any rule of law, and can revoke any "right" of their subjects when they can show a compelling interest to do so.

Government represents the people. You do not. That is the difference.

And again you counter yourself.
As a "representative" how can Government do something with the people, themselves, cannot?

 

[Heuristic]

Kalash,

In the hopes of shortening the length of our posts:

Where in law do you find the qualified right to own whatever you create? Give me a Constitution provision, or a statute, or case. If you cannot find such an unqualfied right in any constitutional provision, any statute, or any case, then it does not exist. Full stop. I don't want to hear philosophical speculations about nature; we don't make law in this country (we try not to make law this way) by letting judges just pull, out of thin air, various rights and responsibilities. Judges are not kings.

Okay? Constitution. Statute. Case. Be precise, and be parsimonious in your presention. Go.

As far the danger of us rushing towards one-world government... take a glance at the world. Trust me. One-world government isn't the danger.

As as the other crap, we've gone around it in enough circles already. One final point: government can do more than you can do because we, the people empower it do so. Government wouldn't work otherwise.