Kalash said:Powers gained through war against the American people aren't binding - or shouldn't be.
You didn't get it. We didn't get the power through war. The power always existed since the constitution was enacted. The south seceded because they wanted states to have that power (and they wanted to keep their slaves) so we fought a war.
You're still not getting it. We are not a conquered people. That and they don't have unconstitutional authority. Congress's power to legislate is CLEARLY outlined in the constitutionIf we are a conquered people - and congress has gained unconstitutional authority over us, then they should have destroyed the constitution after the war and laid claim to the rights reserved to the people.
That is completely irrelevant. If CSA didn't exist, then your argument would be plausible but CSA does exist so it is irrelevant. CSA is the due process. You have things confiscated because they are illegal. They are seized as evidence. It is a very simple matter.They cannot.
This is a law against possessing one's private property.
4th and 5th amendment violations.
They are depriving the people of their property without due process.
There wasn't a MASS buy off of all drugs when the laws were implemented...
People just went to bed innocent, in possession of their private property, and woke up felons because they still possessed their private property.
Irrelevant.Schick vs United States [(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826]
"If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights], the Amendments must control."
The statues violate the constitution - 4th and 5th amendments.
At the time of creation they were in violation of rulings on the negative commerce clause prohibiting Congress from using the Interstate Commerce clause to make laws regulating the "manufacture, production, or mining" as those were PRE-commerce, not commerce itself.
Also irrelevant.Prohibition of possessing something you have created?
Theft.
And...
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
Then prove it. Oh wait, that's right.... 8)And I kind of get where you're going with the 18th and 21st amendments...
However prohibition is NOT a power of congress.
To claim this authority is in violation of the constitutional restraints upon government.
Wrong, I've already been over this.A constitutional amendment was necessary for them to claim this power - as it was depriving the people of their rights.
The only way to deprive the people of their rights? Due process of law; conviction at trial, or constitutional amendment.
That's why the supreme court has judicial review and in theory CAN rewrite the constitution under the right circumstances.The Supreme court cannot re-write the constitution.
Congress can pass an unconstitutional law...
As many as they want...
That would be nice if the CSA was unconstitutional.Marbury vs Madison [5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)]
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Norton vs Shelby County [118 US 425 p. 442]
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
That would still be nice IF THE CSA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!And the 8th amendment - where they're claiming no violence, no infringement of rights, no actual loss or harm...
First off, it is cruel and unusual. Second, that means that you can't, for example, be sentenced to put your arm into a boiling vat of oil (cruel). This also means that you can not be sentenced 25 years for a crime that carries 5-15 years maximum (unusual). Thus, sentencing someone to prison time for possession of ILLEGAL property, does not violate this provision.All these are not considered "cruel or excessive" punishment for someone entering into a consensual contract with his own private property?
Sorry, you should be old enough to realize why this argument in itself is inherently idiotic.What about Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights?
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution... or because of his having so exercised the same...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both..."
What is Congress, if not a group of more than 2 persons conspiring to intimidate and threaten the people into NOT exercising their right to private property?
8). Do I really need to say it again?Even better...
Is an arrest a kidnapping? It's taking someone against their will using force...
"And if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap... they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
Please stop. Whoever you learned from is really misinformed. Honestly, I don't care what you believe but don't go about doing this and critically miseducating the community.