[Lord T Hawkeye]

So, you assault my character...whine whine whine

Get. Over. It.

I'm calling you a liar because you are. You say how nice and polite you are and then proceed to spew insults in the very same breath. You are NO position to lecture me about how bad name calling is so just put that stone down lest you shatter the house.

I will argue that people do believe that some of these issues fall into the realm of constitutional powers, whether I like it or not.

I don't want to hear what SOME people think, I want to hear your own justification. This reeks of shamelessly fence sitting so as to avoid the risk of being called out.

Some think the Patriot Act provides safeguards for the common defense in an age in which we are under attack but secretive rogue agents instead of nations. Of course, the act is being challenged for unchecked powers that defy principles of personal liberty and property.

Then you don't deny that it is a violation? As for what "some" think, do I even need to get out the Ben Franklin quote?

Some argue that there is grounds to infer that government can constitutionally take a role in prohibiting the exchange of dangerous, consumable substances in promoting the general welfare and with power derived from the Commerce Clause, even to the point of prohibiting possession to prevent exchange. This is debated as a breach of state's rights (see California) and wrongheaded outlaw of innocuous or even helpful products to the benefit of noone.

How about this question then? Why did prohibition require a constitutional amendment (which was later retracted) yet the war on drugs did not?

The freedom of speech is not absolute, it does not guarantee the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime with government response. There are multiple scenarios in which it has been found that there are cases in which the speech can be limited without burdening the freedom of speech like yelling "Fire" in a crowded room, perjury, or obscenity in public (the point of contention here).

Those things are not expressing opinions and thus have nothing to do with freedom of speech. That's lame excuse making.

Now, the electronic spectrum has been commissioned as public property under the control of the federal government since it is inherently interstate. It is licensed for commercial use, but with restrictions on things like obscenity as the medium is still inherently public. This standard has been challenged and consistently upheld as constitutional.

Constitutional rights are not subject to public whims. Even if everyone in America was in favor of slavery, it would still be unconstitutional. The whole idea behind a republic is that everyone's rights are inherrent and nobody gets a say otherwise. It's called the rule of law, look it up.

I think the argument for gun control is that the right to keep and bear arms is not completely unrestrained and that practices like limiting free access to certain weaponry, tacking weaponry, and mandating safety courses for keeping certain weaponry and bearing it in certain ways do not place an unnecessary burden on the right while serving the public good. Of course, there are argument that it can go too far an unduly restrict the basic right.

Measures that have all proven to be completely ineffective at stopping gun crime because criminals just simply don't obey them. (Not making this up. Criminals interviewed have said this themselves) The honor system does not impede the dishonorable.

I think basic anti-prostitution laws only exist at a state level and likely have bases in maintaining public order and regulation of intrastate commerce.

You're not alone in that, but you're also dead wrong.

In states where it's illegal, you could go out tonight and rob and/or rape a prostitute and I guarantee you that you will get off scott free. Why? Because she can't report you. If she does, she'll be the one going to jail. Explain to me how this maintains public order? It's a BS, feel good law with no rational thought behind it.

The rational thought: If you take out the money part, isn't it nothing more than sex between two consenting adults? Why is it illegal to sell something that's 100% legal to give away for free? It makes no sense whatsoever.

All that said, I think I've pointed out that there are constitutional contentions on both sides of most of these issues.

Only because you fail to understand the concept of rule of law. Like I said, these are inherrent rights not subject to the whims of politicians or the public. To allow such is to invite tyranny.