Simple question about the prohibition amendment to the Constitution

reply to post by neformore


Sorry mod, won't happen again.

Quite a quandary you present.

If a Constitutional Amendment is required to deny a free person free choices....
Then what is different today (for crying out loud!)

Our first brush with creating illegal substances (that I'm aware of) is not of a pharmacological sort. Cocaine and Heroine were used by health care professionals at the time another substance became a felony to possess.

That substance was gold, of course. The year was 1933. Emergency War Powers were conferred to ol man Rosy, and therein, we have our first evidence of the SUSPENSION of the US Constitution.

Those who have troubled to look through the Senate Report 93-549 have already seen this evidence.

... the implications of this evidence however, are not quite clear.

Assuming the assumption about Constitutional Amendment is true, then we do not live in a union of 50 sovereign republics as defined and limited by the Constitution.

This quandary is evidence of something we have not yet discovered-

Under what system does this cabal claim its authority?

Under the system of brain dead cops who do their bidding, as I mentioned earlier.

It's really quite simple. The police get paid by the government, the government tells them what to do, they want to get paid so they do it.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that power has to be legitimate in order to work. It doesn't. It just has to be power. They have it, we don't, we probably never will.

reply to post by mattifikation


I have nothing to challenge about your statements; although, don't forfeit the great value of exposing their marketing campaign.

Your reasoning stands without doubt. No challenge there.

Although, if you have a competing system, don't like the system in question, or a just a bored trouble-causer, there exists great potential in driving home the point of legitimacy. The system isn't going to disseminate a press release tomorrow, agreeing with you that their might makes right, instead, they're going to feign and weave through the mists of fiction.

You will hear the repeated use of, "civil rights" and "human rights" and such- all of which is eluding to a legitimacy/authority that is entirely fictitious.

There exists wonderful value exposing the inconsistencies between what the system claims, and what the system does. The end result is more people will begin to see what you have seen, and perhaps buy less of the brain-soap for the incessant washings.

reply to post by sakokrap

YES

I never even thought to apply it to the gold confiscation maneuver.

Very good point.

In my other thread on Nullify Now, I had begun to apply it to other arguments as well. Almost every legislation that does not DIRECTLY apply to a defined power of the federal government as laid out in the Constitution, this argument on the Alcohol Prohibition Amendments could apply.

Thanks for opening another path in this rabbit hole.

reply to post by mattifikation


As the other member mentions, just trying to spread the wings of knowledge. You may realize the paradigm, but others may not.

The more we inform of it, the more our power becomes.

Knowledge is power. That is why the feds have taken over the school. They do not want people to know the LAW.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
If it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal, would it not also take a Constitutional Amendment to make any other substance illegal

There have been laws and precedent setting court cases since prohibition. Prohibition was a political action based on action driven by the temperance movement. Your using apples and oranges.

The Federal Government can ban substances i.e. drugs, under any number of Federal legislation currently in place.

Is it "right" is an eyes of the beholder type argument. More importantly, is it "legal", yes.

The argument for the using the 10th amendment is overused when common sense isn't involved.

Your argument for an amendment for banning anything would make the constitution several thousand pages long. It is a much more streamlined process to have laws and agencies with constitutional powers to define specific products than an amendment added and ratified by 38 states.

A very simple example of would by a toy with choking hazards. Do we really need a Constitutional Amendment to list each toy, individually;and then ratified by 38 states. Otherwise use the Commerce clause, also addressed by the Constitution, for blanket coverage for this action. See built in coverage already envisioned by founders.

You were too narrow in your view to just use substances, someone would then argue for all products.

reply to post by hinky


Okay, you are using a product liability as an argument against a substance.

Yes, maybe substance is too small of a descriptor.

As for the choking hazard of a toy example. Selling a product, for the consumption of children.

Hmmm, let me ask you, do you believe that the government should not allow companies to place advertising on their product that they are not GMO foods?

Now, the case you bring up would be one that could fall under the general welfare of the country.

I will have to think about your comment a little bit. Maybe look up some case history.

Keep it up, make me think.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Hmmm, let me ask you, do you believe that the government should not allow companies to place advertising on their product that they are not GMO foods?

I've got a problem with big brother setting up a nanny state.

Companies can advertise all the GM foods they want. It's a free market thing. If a product sells, then sell it. The market drives the products. That being said.

Back to your base argument. Do we need a Constitutional Amendment on this one type of food or should we specifically ban GM corn, and then another for soybeans. What about adding another amendment for antibiotics in Angus cattle, only. Would these amendments even pass given the area and number of states that grow corn and soybeans.

Would Iowa claim State's right so it can grow GM corn, or even pass it's own law that bans GM corn from Nebraska, but allows GM corn from Missouri. Regardless, none of these States would ratify and food based amendment. .

How about, lets use the FDA and USDA working together and these agencies can regulate what truth in labeling laws are used and establish regulations, with oversight, on all GM food.

An amendment for each item is a nanny state.

Keep it up, make me think.

I'm here to help...

For me, the great book, Unintended Consequences by John Ross helped to flesh out some of the historical background of prohibition related fed policies (gold, guns, liquor, maryjane).

I do highly recommend it. Here's some quotes from the book. www.freerepublic.com...

In all logical conclusions derived from the evidence of 18th Amendment, every one of them must harmonize with the fact that the US Constitution is no longer a valid document to source authority/legitimacy.

Amending the Constitution further will have no affect, because it is not a source document of anything other than a Blue Pill Reality. Compelling soldiers to "support and defend" it is as worthwhile as requiring them to swear allegiance to the Beer God.

Unfortunately, discussions about the Constitution at this point should remind one of the discussion between Morpheus and Neo, where Morpheus confesses he doesn't know the year or exactly what happened.... it's just all gone. So it is with the union, the Constitution, and the 50 sovereign republics (now mere satellite administrative districts in some unknown international criminal syndicate).

IF the Constitution derives its power from 2 sources- sovereign republics and a sovereign citizenry,
IF sovereign republics derive their power from sovereign citizens,
IF governments are instituted among men and derive power from consent,

THEN it makes no sense to repair federal level problems without first repairing a CHAIN-OF-CONSENT sourcing the individual sovereign citizen.
THEN it becomes logical that the consent offered by the citizenry to the states (administrative districts) and the fed (the international criminal syndicate) is not bound by, limited to, nor sourced within the Constitution.
THEN the citizens are offering their consent to an unknown alien entity that is hiding behind a Constitutional Costume.

Further, IF the citizenry care about unalienable rights, limited government, and learn of this logical truth, THEN it is just a matter of time before they rescind their consent en-mass. IF the citizenry don't care en mass, THEN the government will become more tyrannical.

Like I said, Big Quandaries!
THEN

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Its called abuse TAX law via the commerce clause!...


You bring up a good point here. It took an amendment to make alcohol illegal and another one to repeal that. they make up the CSA and boom we have lists of PROHIBITED substances. Isnt America great???


im sure this was what the founding fathers has in mind.

reply to post by Mulder420


I will add the sarcasm component!

[SARCASM]

I think the founders wanted everyone to be a cog in the machinery. Do you not see it in the founding documents? They expected us to be automotons. They expected us to be subservient to our masters. They expected us to be SERFS and SLAVES! [sarcasm]

you are all forgetting something though. someone mentioned brainwashed police, that it not so much the case. a majority of america is brainwashed citizens, the truth is all over the place, except major media, and unless they see it on cnn or fox, with the words coming straight out of the "Honorable" Mr. Obama's mouth, then its not true and we are crazy. idk if our small force of conspiracy theorists can stand up to the army of robot americans. however i do agree that something needs done, i just dont know how to do it.