Question by bryguy_95: What part of the Constitution allows the government to prohibit what we put into our own bodies?
I’ve read it and can’t seem to find anything about this. I know the courts have ruled in favor numerous times, but they’re only allowed to interpret, not violate, right?
Also, do you think police should be required to actually read the Constitution that they’re supposed to be defending?
Best answer:
Answer by mannerin193
i dont think any part
What do you think? Answer below!
DAR
April 9, 2011 at 10:17 pm
NO part at all. at best it would be the 10th amendment reserving rights to the people and states, and then people would have to duke it out with the states.
Yes, I think they should have to read the Constitution, take a test drafted by Ron Paul and get a passing grade. Then I think they should be required to READ every bill they pass.
Dan s
April 9, 2011 at 10:37 pm
With Obama, we won’t have a constitution. That’s what we get for voting for “Hope”. Bend over, here comes the “Change”.
Edward
April 9, 2011 at 11:13 pm
How about Article I that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Ergo, they can put restrictions on what products can be sold.
SwizzleStick
April 9, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The constitution also says nothing about allowing owning automatic weapons either. Or mandatory seatbelt use.
It is a living document.
sensible_man
April 9, 2011 at 11:50 pm
The “law” allows this. Find the part in the Constitution that ‘allows” you to do it.
Liz
April 9, 2011 at 11:56 pm
the elastic clause. I cant quote it off the top of my head but that’s what your looking for.
bdouglasharris
April 10, 2011 at 12:08 am
None. In fact, the implied guarantee of privacy in the 4th amendment would keep the government from preventing you from doing so.
ziggurat4u
April 10, 2011 at 12:15 am
the constitution has been watered down through the years with various amendments with at least one that wasn’t even legally ratified by all the states (14th amendment) yet is still used today for the fed government to intrude and impose into the rights of our citizens.
i’d venture to say the average police knows more about the civil rights of citizens than does the average D.C. or Chicago politician!
Mutt
April 10, 2011 at 12:19 am
The courts have ruled that it falls under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
And police do not defend the Constitution. That’s the job of the federal government.
panurge2
April 10, 2011 at 12:50 am
All my friends agree! Keep the govt. out of my bong !
DaylightsDarkness
April 10, 2011 at 1:11 am
Police do not defend the Constitution. Most LEOs don’t do anything at all involving federal laws; rather, they enforce state and local laws.
rann_georgia
April 10, 2011 at 1:51 am
Well, perhaps if you read the Constitution, you’d know the answer. I don’t think it’d do any good to have polie required to read the Constitution. When passing high school, I remember a requirement was to be tested on it.
If anything, if they’re up on the Constitution and rights, that would give them license to do things not covered by the Constitution and get away with it.
It’s supposed to be against the law to drink and drive, yet, pull off of the interstate and in many counties, beer is readily available in singles, doubles and various sizes. Yet, no where does it state that it is illegal to drink it while operating a motor vehicle.
Even cigarettes posts the hazards. But smoking cigarettes in a car won’t make the county any money, now will it? MADD probably was an organization at one time true to it’s mission. I think now it’s true to its directors and continuation of bringing in funds and paying out big bucks to the directors of that vigilante group.
sgoldperson
April 10, 2011 at 2:40 am
The Amendment that says they are to look out for the GENERAL WELFARE of the people. Also in a States issue look at the 10th Amendment, all other rights are up to the States and the People.
Reverend Rory
April 10, 2011 at 2:58 am
Article 1, Section 7 details how bills become laws. The assumption is that laws will be made governing behaviors of the populace, the Constitution is simply putting boundaries on what those laws can and cannot be.
In the 1800s, the Constitution was interpreted in such a fashion that if it was not specifically mentioned, the power to regulate something did not exist. In the 20th century a new interpretation ethos was developed; if the Constitution doesn’t mention it, then it doesn’t mean we can’t legislate it. Fancy word dance.
The government can prohibit what we put in our bodies because of what Thomas Jefferson feared – 51% telling the other 49% what to do. I’m sure he never thought it would be over something as ridiculous as hemp (which he farmed and traded in, although not as prolifically as George Washington), but he knew it would happen.
quizzard123
April 10, 2011 at 3:09 am
You don’t understand how the constitution works. The government of the states and the country are empowered to make any laws they see fit UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS IT. That’s the system. The government does not have to pass a law through any sort of constitutional filter. Instead, they can make a law, and the courts can choose to rule that it violates the constitution.
Laws are assumed to be legal unless overturned by the courts.
In any event, there are no laws prohibiting what you put into your body. The laws (I assume you mean drug laws) prohibit POSSESSION of the banned substance, not actually USING them, except in the case of laws prohibiting minors from drinking. Laws also prohibit doing certain things (driving, for example) while under the influence. You can get as stoned as you want, if nobody catches you doing it, and if you just sit at home on the couch while stoned.