As Bryan notes, it would be helpful if you talked about specific laws. Again, if you’re talking about weed, I’m all for legalization, though I’m curious how you think there’s a constitutional right to get high. However the social costs of meth–which are real, despite the media hysteria–are high enough that I do not want the law to condone the use of meth, even though it could be regarded as a “victimless crime.”
So what specific laws are you talking about? In any event such laws–laws against drugs and prostitution, I guess–are not unconstitutional. If they were, some one would have challenged them already. They may be unjustified, but there’s nothing in the constitution that invalidates them.
How many crimes involved demon rum? It seems to me that relationship is much lower now that prohibition has been repealed.
I will not argue that some peaceful pursuits too easily pose threat in the wrong hands. Firearms come to my mind. Regulation, even when strict, still offers the peaceful their pursuits. When a dangerous pursuit is well regulated, strife is minimized by both definition and fact.
Vice is implicitly condoned in the Constitution through the creation of an office to be in charge of it. In fact, the person in charge of vice is considered so high-ranking that he is the first to succeed the President, should the President be unable to fulfill his duties.
I dunno, I thought it was funny. Frankly, these “peaceful pursuit/quest” threads always seem to wind down with quips and wisecracks rather than ideas, because there usually isn’t anything of substance to discuss in the first place.
Clearly it IS constitutional. It’s been done to death and even had one vice (consumption of alcoholic beverages) made into a constitutional amendment…then later repealed through the same process.
Well, it had to be made so nationally. Prior to the 18th, I assume individual states and counties were “dry”, and offhand I don’t know of a constitutional legal challege to these laws (I expect many such dry communities still exist where the sale of alcohol is forbidden at least some of the time - I’ve never heard of any constitutional challenge working). The 18th had the effect of imposing temperance views on the entire country. Did any states vote against ratification of the 18th? Did any vote against ratification of the 21st?
If it was constitutional, a bill would have sufficed, like with the Controlled Substances Act. And state laws can conflict, like with medical marijuana today: legal in certain states, while still being nationally illegal in terms of federal law. Importantly, permissive state law is not an affirmative defense for those arrested by the Feds.
Good point. Maybe before interstate highway funds (as well as the expansion of Federal power during and after WW2) the Feds of 1917 knew they didn’t have the clout to enforce an unpopular federal law, needing an unpopular amendment to give them legitimacy. Of course, the net effect was to (further) corrupt the state and city governments of New York and Illinois, among others.
But for the unpleasant matter of all those Tommy-guns, resistance to Prohibition is an almost-charming example of civil disobedience.
Think of this as an exercise in al-gebra. Instead of specific numbers or laws, consider the hidden principle that governs numbers and laws.
Our nation is born by the truth that all are endowed with equal right of peaceful pursuit. If someone is mugged, their right of peaceful pursuit has been denied. This is a crime. Our constitution is instituted to secure right of peace for all through regulation and justice.
Vice is called a “victimless” crime because no one’s rights have actually been violated or threatened prior to the arrest. The alleged threat tends to be based on an unjustified fear that someone’s wife will turn into a pillar of salt or other such nonsense.
Prohibition is not the same as regulation. Prohibition is a denial of peaceful pursuit. You cannot prove the pursuit was not peaceful unless fair regulation is offered and threat beyond regulation is proved.
Amendment IX invalidates vice laws. The right of peaceful pursuit is an inalienable right. Just because it is not specifically mentioned, does not mean it is denied by the constitution.
Frankly it is no one’s business what one does to their own body. If someone wants to fry their brain, or fatten their arteries; so be it. Just keep it peaceful.
Current Findings: Although several opinions were offered that prohibition is constitutional, no words of law or constitution have been presented to support this opinion.
In defense of Liberty:
Amendment I
Prohibition of vice is based on religious law and therefore violates the first amendment that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
It is further noted that prohibition violates the first amendment prohibiting free exercise of religion based on a government list of “approved” religions.
Amendment IX
Just because the right of peaceful pursuit is not specifically mentioned, does not mean it is denied or disparaged by the constitution.
Amendment XVII
Prohibition requires an amendment to be considered constitutional.
Unless something more compelling than opinion or personal attack is presented, justice finds that prohibition of peaceful pursuits is both unconstitutional and unjust.
If you’re interested in a substantive debate, it would help if you clarified whether you’re referring to state or federal laws, and if the former, whether you believe they violate their own state constitutions or the federal constitution. The constitutional considerations in each case are very different.
I am referring to the US constitution; but that is not why there is no substantive debate.
If any vice laws are unconstitutional (US), on grounds of denial (as opposed to regulation) of peaceful pursuit; state vice laws are also unconstitutional. Please reread the testimony and click on all links (blue underlined words). A vice is defined as a “victimless crime”. I disagree. The victims are those harassed and arrested and imprisoned by these unjust and unconstitutional laws.
Yet still there are vice laws. To date, none of our esteemed board members have offered substantive debate, much less proof that vice laws are constitutional.
The whole peaceful pursuit angle, springing as it does from the Declaration of Independence, is (as far as I can tell) 100% irrelevant.
On prostitution specifically (if the op can’t or won’t be specific, I may as well give it a shot), the New York Supreme Court upheld state laws in the Cherry v. Koch decision. On this issue (and on drugs too, arguably), there is a state interest of public health that overrides individual freedom. Personally, I’d like to see prostitution legalized but heavily regulated.
Would you also argue that health is as irrelevant as peace? The Supreme Court recently ruled that interstate commerce takes precedence over the health of an individual.
I admit I find it quite frightening that our military personnel , the force that is charged to protect us from tyranny, finds the Declaration of Independence irrelevant. What is even more frightening is that your commander in chief evidently feels the same as you.
Amendment IX – The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Still, you have only presented opinion and precedence that peace(ful pursuit) is not a right retained by the people. Do you still argue that you need not prove just denial of liberty? Do you maintain that opinion and precedence is sufficient to deny your own liberty? Or would you demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, that your pursuit was not in fact peaceful and not a threat if properly regulated?
Let me see if I can give the OP an assist in framing the debate.
When the Constitution was up for debate, a faction of Americans refused to endorse it unless it included a bill of rights. But this idea gave the framers pause. How could they possibly list all rights? What if they missed one? To address this concern, they included, in the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment:
The OP argues that the right to peaceful pursuit of happiness is an “unenumerated right.” Drug use and other “vice” crimes, the OP apparently believes, falls under the heading of “peaceful pursuit of happiness.”
The right to pursuit of happiness is listed nowhere in the Bill of Rights, which would be the end of the discussion for strict constructionists.
On the other hand, the Declaration of Independence says that among the inalienable rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court (noting the language of the Ninth Amendment) held that there exists a “right to privacy” even though such a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights. They held that the right “emanated” from the “penumbras” of the enumerated rights. (Don’t ask me. Personally, I don’t think “penumbras” are necessary for the court to discern an unenumerated right. But I ain’t on the Supreme Court.)
So back to the OP…
Resolved:
The right to engage in a peaceful vice as one pleases is one form of the “pursuit of happiness.” Though that right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, it is a fundamental and inalienable right “retained by the people.” As evidence, we have the language of the Declaration of Independence calling it such. Or, if you insist, it “emanates” from the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights.
