# Stuff and Things > The Pub >  Comment thread for SMDT vs TRAT debate TONIGHT

## Trinnity

This thread is for commentary on the debate SMDT and TRAT are having.
*Do NOT post on their debate thread, but here instead.*

You may post questions you'd like me to ask.

----------


## Trinnity

The topic is federalism VS States rights - in the War on Drugs.

*Specifically, states rights to legalize drugs vs federal rights to trump states  legalization of drugs and continue to prohibit them being legal.* 

SMDT will take the fed position to have dominance over the States to keep them illegal, and TRAT will argue for the states right to be allowed to decide. 

*The debate will begin with an opening statement from each debater. So contestants, please have your opening statements ready.*

Other members, DO NOT POST on this thread. There will be a comment thread for everyone else. Comment thread for SMDT vs TRAT debate TONIGHT

The debate will last one hour. Any questions from me will be in red. At the end I will choose the winner based on not who I agree with, but who I think debated the best. I'm not gonna score, but go with my gut. The winner will get 10 reps, equaling 100 points. 

The debate will begin between 9 and 9:30 pm eastern and end one hour later. Then each person may make a closing statement.

----------


## Trinnity

Are there any questions you all want me to ask? This is not so much if drugs should be legalized, but who should have the say over it, state or fed.

----------


## Guest

I would like to know about court cases and case law that promote the federal government over the states when it comes to enumerated rights (9th amendment).

----------


## Guest

And to that end, if the federal government has power over enumerated rights can it also tell you where you children may go to school or not go to school?

----------


## Trinnity

Okay. Well that would take some research on their part, prolly. I'll let them know.
I may or may not ask about that, or any question that's posed.
 @saintmichaeldefendthem @The Real American Thinker

----------


## The XL

When is this starting?

----------


## The XL

Never mind, I just saw the other thread.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Um....are we going to unlock the thread any time soon?

----------


## Trinnity

The debate starts at 9:30.

----------


## Maximatic

> No, we failed us. They gave us the independence and the blueprint. We were supposed to pick it up from there. We didn't. We changed it twenty-seven times in over two hundred years.
> 
> They did the best they could. We didn't.


If the constitution gives the general government the power to regulate, even ban the production and sale of anything and everything, which is what the reasoning used to support that farmer fine ruling implies, then it certainly isn't any of us who can be blamed for that, it's the guys who wrote it. I think the commerce clause could have been written better, but let's be honest, that ruling is idiotic. It was justified by what might have happened if (insert counterfactual scenario).

The judge was saying that something that did not, in fact, happen gives the feds the authority to do something. Logically, that's laughable. And then to extend to banning all production and exchange of something entirely? Beyond stupid.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> If the constitution gives the general government the power to regulate, even ban the production and sale of anything and everything, which is what the reasoning used to support that farmer fine ruling implies, then it certainly isn't any of us who can be blamed for that, it's the guys who wrote it. I think the commerce clause could have been written better, but let's be honest, that ruling is idiotic. It was justified by what might have happened if (insert counterfactual scenario).
> 
> The judge was saying that something that did not, in fact, happen gives the feds the authority to do something. Logically, that's laughable. And then to extend to banning all production and exchange of something entirely? Beyond stupid.


Of course it's a terrible ruling, but what did We the People do about it?

----------


## Maximatic

> Of course it's a terrible ruling, but what did We the People do about it?


I don't know. What should the people have done about it? I know they reelected the administration that passed the law in question three times.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't know. What should the people have done about it? I know they reelected the administration that passed the law in question three times.


That's the point. They did nothing, and even re-elected those at fault.

----------


## Trinnity

> I passed on that argument because I've already been through that with him. He doesn't believe the constitution puts a size on the federal government.


But it does. The Constitution is a document that LIMITS govt power.

----------


## Guest

I thought the argument TRAT made was wrong.  He should have attacked the very fact that the federal government has the right to make that type of law anyway.  This whole debate should have been around the 9th amendment in both the founder's interpretation, use, and case law.

 :Big Grin: 

SMDT sucks at making that argument.  TRAT could have nailed him had he used that approach because there is no other basis.  In every other circumstance of individual recklessness aside from drugs the 9th amendment stands.  There has been no occasion other than that where the courts have upheld vices for criminality or allowed the argument of affect of a vice on the population.

----------


## Trinnity

> How do you know?  You just said you don't smoke it.


I know and it's none of  your business how I know.  :Laughing1:

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-15-2013)

----------


## Paperback Writer

Challenge him to a follow up.  I've tried to get your bloke to debate but I suppose he's frightened.   :Big Grin:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Wait a minute. It says that Congress has the power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." 
> 
> What does that mean, exactly?


It means that money has to be re appropriated for military use, which Congress can do.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I thought the argument TRAT made was wrong.  He should have attacked the very fact that the federal government has the right to make that type of law anyway.  This whole debate should have been around the 9th amendment in both the founder's interpretation, use, and case law.
> 
> 
> 
> SMDT sucks at making that argument.  TRAT could have nailed him had he used that approach because there is no other basis.  In every other circumstance of individual recklessness aside from drugs the 9th amendment stands.  There has been no occasion other than that where the courts have upheld vices for criminality or allowed the argument of affect of a vice on the population.


I was hoping he would bring up the 9th Ammendment.  It's much easier to neutralize that argument.  Instead, the wiley Fox was trying to lure me into a discussion about whether pot was dangerous or addictive.

----------


## Guest

> I was hoping he would bring up the 9th Ammendment.  It's much easier to neutralize that argument.  Instead, the wiley Fox was trying to lure me into a discussion about whether pot was dangerous or addictive.


Dude, I'd own you on it.  I argued that one at Georgetown and beat the shit out of this guy we'll call "James".  He never did his homework in case law or he had a memory problem, not sure which.

We should have a follow up, but I'm thinking of challenging Polly to a gun control first.

Hey...why is the missus not posting?   :Frown:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Dude, I'd own you on it.  I argued that one at Georgetown and beat the shit out of this guy we'll call "James".  He never did his homework in case law or he had a memory problem, not sure which.
> 
> We should have a follow up, but I'm thinking of challenging Polly to a gun control first.
> 
> Hey...why is the missus not posting?


It's a whole different game when there's an actual moderated debate.  The victories in your mind don't necessarly translate into actual victories.  My wife isn't much into posting, she does it when she feels like it, but I'll let her know she's missed.  :Smiley20:

----------



----------

