FDA Sued Over Electronic Cigarette Embargo

[skex]

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Look at the lanuguage here - The consititution was formed from a confederation of states who agreed on certain priniciples when founding one central Federal government - that's it! It has no bearing on any non-citizen. It is a very liberal idea to expand the scope of the constitution to non-citizens.

Irrelevant.

Read the Bill of Rights show me where it says anything about citizens. There are a lot of shall nots.

Understand I don't mean to imply that those rights somehow extend to places outside the United States. Obviously first amendment rights do not apply to the UK no matter how much Michael Savage may think otherwise.

As I said before the Constitution set out the standards for the United States federal government laying out specific prohibitions on what it is allowed to do. And there is nothing in the language that implies some sort of exception in the case of aliens.

Remember there is no language in the constitution that actually defines what a citizen is so why would you think that the federal government is allowed to make exceptions for non-citizens.

Once again look at how the ammendments are worded they are usually in the form of a justificatoin "the right of the people blah blah..." followed by the prohibition "congress shall not" do something.

I tend to the view of the constitution that the framers were very careful in their language and meant what they friggin said. That the 1st Amendment prohibits any limitation of free speech (yes even yelling fire in a crowded theater) that the second amendment specifically protects that class of weapons that we today call "assualt riffles" and that any protection afforded to your hunting riffle is incidental at best.

When you make the argument that the rights in enumerated in the Bill of Rights only apply to US citizens you are making a leap beyond what is supported by the text of the document itself.

This is not a liberal or conservative view that somehow expands the constitution, this is a straightforward reading of the language.

Consider if you travel to say the UK those rights you claim apply to U.S citizens cease to apply. Because the UK has it's own laws which supercede save where there are specific international agreements.

I refer once again to the case of Michael Wiener err I mean "savage" who has been barred from entering the UK based upon his hateful rhetoric.

While with in the United States he has the right to say what ever nonsense he wants that is protected speech because the U.S Constitution specifically forbids the U.S government from sanctioning someone based on speech.

The English Government which does not opperate under the U.S Constitution has no such limitation applied to it's actions because it has no 1st Amendment limiting it's powers. There for even though Michael Savage is protected by the 1st Amendment here the fact that he's a U.S citizen does not extend to him any special protections outside U.S territory.

Because I stated before the U.S Constitution places limits on the power of the U.S government it does not somehow magically confer certain rights to people by virtue of their citizenship.

 

[skex]

Yeah, I thought maybe smokers should organize a "cigarette party," while no economist/historian, I'm sure the tax on tea was a pittance compared to the taxes they keep slapping on smokes![/quote

]

You are an unpatriotic soul (just ask VP Biden) and just think of all the poor children you are depriving of their health insurance. The S-Chip program is funded by tobacco taxes. How dare you put your selfish health and financial concerns above the NEEDS of the government8-o

And in this case Biden is correct. There is nothing I find more annoying as a veteran than seeing these support our troop stickers on the back of vehicles with anti-tax nonsense.

Seriously how the frack do you think you are supporitng the troops eh?

What? moral friggin support?

BTW to the all the Teabaggers you do realize that the Boston Tea party was about a tax cut right?

See here's what happened the British crown granted a tax exemption to the East India Tea Company which meant that all other individual trying to compete faced an additional burden which harmed their ability to compete fairly.

They weren't ...... because their tea was taxed, that tax had been in place for years they were ...... because one company was given an unfair exemption from that tax.

So as I said despite all the Teabagging siliness the Boston Tea Party was over a tax cut.

But back to patriotism and paying taxes. What do you think pays for body armor? or M1 tanks or M16s or bullets or MRE's. You think that **** is just magicked out of someones ...?

No it's paid for by tax revenue's so when you whine about your taxes you most certainly are not supporting the troops.

Taxes are not theft, taxes are the price you pay for living in our society. Of course no one likes paying taxes. I don't like paying my mortgage either but I like living on the streets even less.

Yeah I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but I do like having decent roads to drive on, I like having a police force to ensure that there are not bandits waiting on that roadway to waylay me and deprive me of my life and property. I like having the protection of a military to ensure that no tin pot dictator gets it into his mind to come take my crap.

Taxes are not theft because theft implies that no value is returned. You get value returned for your taxes. You really hate taxes that much then by all means leave, but you have no claim to patriotism.

I will close with the words of no lesser luminary than Benjamin Franklin

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation
of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his
natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all
Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the
Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore
by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick
shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society
on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can
have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his
Club towards the Support of it."

Patriots indeed.

 

[Limoncello]

Geez, and this is the by product of history classes in our public school system for which I pay so many taxes--nice!

BTW-why do the dems/libs feel the need to cut the money support of our troops on a consistent basis?

Patriotic indeed!


And I resent the 'teabagger' tag you post. Purely disgusting slam against those who feel the gov't is overspending and stealing from our kids and generations to come. And by gov't I mean both parties.

 

[skex]

Geez, and this is the by product of history classes in our public school system for which I pay so many taxes--nice!

BTW-why do the dems/libs feel the need to cut the money support of our troops on a consistent basis?

Patriotic indeed!


And I resent the 'teabagger' tag you post. Purely disgusting slam against those who feel the gov't is overspending and stealing from our kids and generations to come. And by gov't I mean both parties.

You have any actual evidence for your assertion that dems/libs feel the need to cut the money support of our troops on a consistent basis?

Seriously we're not the ones constanting crying about paying taxes (which is what pays for all that military hardware and pathetic paychecks)

I served during a time that the GOP had the power of the purse I don't recall them ever pushing for big pay raises for us troops.

Yeah they're always real big on expensive weapon systems where the bulk of the money spent goes to MIC companies like Lockheed Martin and GE but the troops are still using Vietnam era small arms.

What I have noticed about Republicans is that while they are perfectly happy to spend money on the military they are completely unwilling to actually raise revenue to pay for that spending.

While engaged in 2 wars Bush and the Republican controlled congress CUT TAXES. Are you friggin kidding me? We're facing 10 trillion dollars in debt thanks to Republican largess yet your going to cry about a 3% hike on the top 1% of income earners? It should be more like a 30% hike.

Further after spending like a teenager with his first credit card for 3 decades they start crying when the Democrats start actually working towards fixing all the problems they created.

The ultimate irony here being that all this hoopla started when I complimented a Conservative Judge on his consistency even though I probably disagree with him on many if not most issues.

 

[doc g]

The democrats have been labelled the party of tax & spend-
& this makes a lot more sense than
overspend & borrow, (from china, in the form of china buying US treasury notes).