Smokers Terrorists?

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

.
.

Log in

Search on Site

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

.
banner
.

Recent Posts

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

.
banner
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jaysin

Preferred Member
Feb 8, 2012
1,083
0
Indiana
Well under the smoking ban that takes effect July 1 its possable

heres one of the agencies that can be used or put incharge of enforcement of the law

the department of homeland security by IC 10-19-7-1

Really DHS? now this is takeing it way too far.

 

hobie1dog

Preferred Member
Jun 5, 2010
6,921
208
64
Cornelius, NC
The Patriot Act removed most of our previous freedoms. Everyone should read it and find out what was taken from them. No one cared, no one seemed to know what was going on, it was all done in the name of defending our country against those evil terrorists.

 

locopony

Preferred Member
Jun 7, 2011
711
0
As I recall noone supported that bill and it was crammed down our throat against our will.

 

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

.
.

hobie1dog

Preferred Member
Jun 5, 2010
6,921
208
64
Cornelius, NC
As I recall noone supported that bill and it was crammed down our throat against our will.
You got that right, they do what they want to do, when they want to do it, while the Sheeple are occupied with their sporting events, and busy at the Mall buying sneakers with lights in them. :crazy:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Pipewizard420

reichenbach

Preferred Member
Jan 5, 2012
552
0
West Park, NY
That is the trick of government. It's best to avoid the 'discussion' period or else people might figure out what they are up to. That's how they finally passed the smoking ban in New York State after it had been shot down several times. Either that, or say it is for the 'benefit of the children' and everyone says, "Well, yes, of course, if it's for the children."

 

cigrmaster

Preferred Member
May 26, 2012
15,505
14,674
United States
Making laws and then enforcing them are two completely different animals. Here in Sarasota FL, they passed a no smoking law on Siesta Key beach. I go there a lot and smoke every time I am there and have never had an issue. I refuse to give up my smoking on the beach and even when the police show up on their atv's, they never bother people who are smoking. My next door neighbor is LE and he is a pipe and cigar guy and he tells me go ahead and smoke, no one on the force gives a crap about that stupid law.

 

barkar

Preferred Member
Apr 17, 2012
1,105
0
The USA and Canada as well in recent years have created such a network of "protections" that in order to keep our freedoms we had to give most up. Talk about a catch 22.

 

brian64

Preferred Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,460
3,497
You got that right, they do what they want to do, when they want to do it, while the Sheeple are occupied with their sporting events, and busy at the Mall buying sneakers with lights in them.
Hey, the principles and precepts (such as Habeas Corpus) that have been thrown in the trash are only key pillars that all of Western Civilization was based on...going back not just to our Constitution and Founders, but to the Magna Carta. So what's the big deal? How is this more important than football season?

 

jrtaster

Junior Member
Sep 28, 2009
98
1
CigarMaster, I sure do hope that the prevalent attitude of LE in your town, as stated in your post, doesn't somehow come to the attention of the City Fathers. Hope no one 'drops a dime' on our sympathetic bretheren in blue! jr/john

 

jaysin

Preferred Member
Feb 8, 2012
1,083
0
Indiana
Oddly enough there is no smoking with in 8 feet of a public entrence so in thory cant walk down most sidewalks in this town but i donot think that any business will do what the law says and call the athortys because it would affect their lively hood

 

barkar

Preferred Member
Apr 17, 2012
1,105
0
Latest news up here today is a poll asking if Canada should do what New Zealand is doing...smoke free country by 2025.

 

photoman13

Preferred Member
Mar 30, 2012
2,826
0
I hope not my Canadian brother! Plus if Canada does that the US will probably follow.

 

jaysin

Preferred Member
Feb 8, 2012
1,083
0
Indiana
HAHAHAHAHAHA If canada does and the US follows I can see the South Park Blame Canada episode being played 24 7.

I dont think they would try that here there has been several states have passed resoultions to Secede from the union. The more recent being

Oklahoma passing a resolution declaring its sovereignty.

Now before anyone starts saying it cant be done read and logically think about the following.

There is no Constitutional procedure for State secession from the Union; however, no State is prevented from separating from the union under penalty of law. While the Declaration of Independence is not controlling law, it is more persuasive then Foreign Law which is very popular among the liberal judiciary. The Declaration states that it is not only a private right, but also a duty of the governed to abolish or alter the government when government becomes abusive. If you prefer we can look at ancient Greek and Hebrew writings for authority to show that the right to self-governance has always been considered inalienable. We have a tradition that dates back to ancient times, and are for example immortalized in the Virginia State Flag that Thomas Jefferson designed. It shows Athena, the female worrier, victorious in battle and standing over the splayed body of the tyrant Zeus, the god of law. Although Zeus imposed onerous burdens upon humanity, he was above the law and was not bound by it. When the government holds itself above the supreme law of the land, in this case the U.S. Constitution, it must be held to account. When the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to take action, then it is the right of the people to act.
There is a considerable body of international law to follow. East Timor, Eritrea, and the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, including the most recent example in Kosovo are all clearly precedential. Foreign law clearly supports the concept of lawful succession. Let us consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms the right of all peoples to have their own country. “Article 15 (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Each Citizen has a State nationality. Each State is as sovereign as any other State and originally agreed to grant limited powers to the Federal government, but those powers have been vastly enlarged by a century of liberal Supreme Court decisions, one of which is the case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), which
The Wickard case followed the failed attempt by FDR to “pack” the Court with additional liberal justices who would enable him to proceed with his policies intended to stimulate the depressed economy. The Wickard case involved a Federal government decreed that a certain local farmer could grow only a limited quantity of wheat. He exceeded his allotment and used the extra wheat to feed his livestock. The Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and not the local activity that takes place completely within a State. Since none of the “extra” wheat was to be shipped out of state and into interstate commerce, the local Federal court held that Congress had no jurisdiction to control the quantity of wheat grown to be used locally, and not to be shipped into interstate commerce. The Supreme Court reversed and thereby expanded the control of Congress into matters that are completely within the domain of the individual States. Thus began the expansion of the powers of Congress until today the Federal government controls every aspect of human life, even those activities intended by the original States to be within the jurisdiction of the State and the Citizens of the State.
Sate citizenship is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; however, Federal citizenship is voluntary. It was the 14th Amendment that gave rise to the concept of duel citizenship: “The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States … and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States… and the other of the state. Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327(1874) headnote 8,
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966). The voluntary notion of Federal citizenship has been upheld since the earliest days of the Federal union[1]: "a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty -- the right to declare who are its citizens." State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)
Indeed Federal citizenship is not defined by the Constitution. At best it is a creation of judicial opinion based upon the language of the 14th Amendment; therefore, citizens of the individual States of the Union who endure policies of a Federal Government that conflict with their strong moral convictions, who through taxation are forced contribute their resources to causes that they believe to be wasteful and ill-advised, have an inalienable right to free themselves from their subjugated status.
When the Federal government creates special classes of persons and seeks to protect them by passing “hate crimes”, when the Federal government passes laws that penalizes the free exchange of ideas by requiring broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoint, this government arguably engages in conduct strictly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, when the Federal government seeks to deny law-abiding citizens ownership of guns, it violates the 10th Amendment, and it renders Citizens of the States defenseless against the abuses of Federal government power. It is the duty of the Federal government to protect and defend the Constitution and citizens of the several States, but instead of passing laws that protect lawful conduct, the Federal government by denying lawful possession of all types of weapons, has passed laws that deny State citizens the reasonable opportunity to also defend themselves against threats to their lives by lawless individuals and gangs. Given the history of gang violence using illegally obtained weapons, it is ludicrous to believe that a law prohibiting the sale of certain guns will do anything other than prevent law-abiding individuals from obtaining weapons of self defense. The government that denies ownership of guns to law-abiding citizens violates the supreme law of the land and a basic and valuable freedom.
There is domestic case authority that a state that secedes does so with the tacit consent of the Federal Government, and that succession completely severs the relationship of that State from the Federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of White v. Texas, following the Civil War, decided that after the Legislature of the Sate of Texas put to a vote of the people the question as to whether the State should secede from the union, and the measure passed upon a vote of 34,794 for and 11,235 against, and Texas joined the Confederate States of America. Military forces were organized and put under the direct control of the new Texas State authority. Shortly after its establishment, the new State government collapsed. The Court held that “Texas by her rebellious courses had so far changed her status, as one of the United States, as to be disqualified from suing in this court.” In effect the United States Supreme Court held that Texas was successful in separating from the United States.
I see no reason why a State might not unilaterally declare its independence from governance by Washington Bureaucrats. This is not to say that a State might not consent to contribute its State National Guard to matters of international concern where the national defense is at stake. Like any coalition between the United States and Foreign States, an independent State of the Union might agree to cooperate in matters that are acceptable to the Citizens of their independent State.
Is the Nation indivisible? The United States is not by reason of the Constitution “indivisible”. The pledge, “one nation indivisible” that used to be common in public schools is no longer important. In fact that “Pledge” did not come into existence until the late 18th Century, and is of no legal significance in deciding the issue.
Even if we set aside the legal framework and talk about human nature and what is possible, since America came into existence by way of secession from under the authority of the Crown of England, secession certainly would be upholding one of the Nations earliest traditions. Those who would say that to advocate secession is treasonous, ignore the history of the Union. Those who rallied behind the secession from the USSR would have to be consistent and respect the desire of Citizens of the States to decide to withdraw from a Federal government of ideals to which citizens of a State do not conform. In theory the right to secede is a powerful deterrent to excessive Federal control over intrastate matters, and should not be rejected as a possible cure.
Since the States voluntarily joined into the United States of America to form a more perfect union, it is logical that this union continues to be voluntary. Assume that the Citizens of a certain State choose to secede from the Union. We should consider what measures the Federal government might take. It is almost unthinkable that the inhabitants of the seceding State would suffer personal injury or death as a result of actions taken under the authority of the President with the Consent of Congress. Certainly no law is broken when the secession is peaceful through referendum.
It is doubtful, given the recent evidence of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, that the President or Congress would consider incarcerating anyone without the benefit of due process, and without charging a criminal offense. Certainly those who decried the use of force to effect regime change in Iraq would have to be consistent and decry the use of force against the Citizens or even illegal aliens of the State seeking secession.
The next logical question we might ask is who would want to secede from the Union. I submit that the answer is those more likely to secede are conservatives since they have in effect opposed the existing expansion of the powers of the President and Congress beyond the strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Liberals on the other hand are presumably content with the level of incursion into the affairs of the individual States by the Federal government.
Conservatives who believe that peoples of a country are free to determine their governance would be likely to support the act of secession by peoples of a State who wish to self-govern and be free from the burden of the weighty decisions of a liberal U.S. Supreme Court that has been instrumental in aiding Congress to widen its constitutionally proscribed powers until today there is seeming no limit to the power the Court is willing to give to the Federal government.
What are some of the main factors that might give impetus to the desire of Citizens of the individual States to secede? Certainly if the Federal Government fails to provide for the Common defense, or allows the collapse of the U.S. Dollar, there would likely be much more interest among Citizens of a State for self-determination.
There is also the fact that many of the States of the Union traditionally governed by Democrats are for all intents and purposes financially bankrupt and have passed laws which are considered to be immoral by standards held by a majority of individuals who traditionally vote for Republican representatives. Republican (Red) states for example are typically called upon to contribute to the welfare of urbanized areas on both sides of the continent which have for many decades been governed by Democrats.
Conservatives are already segregated, there is considerable animosity expressed in the liberal national media toward conservatives who “cling to their guns and Bibles”. Conservatives are routinely vilified by the elite class of journalists. It is easy to believe that Conservatives already feel significant segregation from Congress, and those who render judicial opinions, editorial opinions, and newscasters who slant the news and sometime knowingly misrepresent the facts. A sufficient number of Conservatives exist already who do not want to be told that their breath contributes to global warming and therefore are paying exorbitant prices for goods because of woeful environmental regulations that add billions to the cost of goods and services. This is also a liberal cause celebrated by the media and the Federal Courts.
The failure of Federal Programs like Welfare, Social Security and Medicare has already created a schism between the liberals who support them and conservatives who oppose them. The final straw might well be the adoption of universal healthcare that conservatives believe, and history confirms, will result in people dying due to paucity of qualified medical doctors. The present system of control by health insurance carriers over doctors in what they can prescribe is a precursor to a more convoluted quagmire of governmental bureaucracy. What needs to be fixed is the way insurance companies parcel out healthcare decisions based upon charts and statistics rather than upon good medical advice. Fraud will exist in any system, but is mostly found in Medicaid and Medicare, and to a much lesser extent in private medical plans.
It is not difficult to believe that the failure of the Federal Government to provide good healthcare might add to the discontent of peoples who desire to return to “better days” when it was possible to call upon a highly qualified doctor of your choice and obtain an appointment within a few days, or in an emergency even the same day.
Without a doubt if the Federal Reserve destroys the US Dollar, and it is certainly in the process of doing so today, there is likely to be a tremendous groundswell of emotion, indignation, and repressed anger, and it is very likely given these scenarios that Citizens of prosperous states will not likely be willing to carry on their shoulders the failures and bankruptcies of States such as California and New Jersey.
Can We as Citizens of a State Secede From the Union? Yes we can!

 

photoman13

Preferred Member
Mar 30, 2012
2,826
0
wow that is quite a long post. I don't really believe it will happen in the US. It is just a little scary that a civilized country would totally outlaw something, that to me, is a god given freedom.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

.
.