Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

mangrovemama2002#269868 writes:

in response to cjensen:


"Just asking - how is it that creating laws about prostitution, drugs, etc. - end badly? Just not sure what you mean."

Well, I don't recall anybody breaking out a bottle of champagne to celebrate the win over any of them. The war on drugs is arguably the most damaging of all wars (okay, Vietnam and Iraq have their own special place). Tens of billions dollars spent, tens of thousand thrown in jail, many and massive jails built, huge expenditures to run the prisons....and we are not a single step closer to winning than the day we started.

"The "Bill of Restrictions" is called the U.S. Code Annotated, and it is huge. And modern legislators seem to be much more concerned with that, than the Bill of Rights. (Not nearly as much payola in the Bill of Rights than in the U.S. Code Annotated.)"

Excellent point, indeed. The Founders didn't attempt to impose religion or morality, but it sure hasn't slowed up the legislatures.

I guess that's why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are about the same size over the last couple hundred years, but the Annotated Code keeps expanding faster than our waist line. (for the anal attentive types, yes, I know the two are not the same age)

I like that---good point.


I am with you on the Federal War on Drugs. I would let the states do what they want from a drug law standpoint. That is consistent with the Federalism that our founding fathers established and that Congress and 43 Presidents have whittled down.

I would add the War on Poverty to the list of wars that we need to declare ourselves victorious and quit and go home.

And your comment about the US Code Annotate being properly labeled the Bill of Restrictions is on the money.

We need less laws (in DC and in Nashville), not more.

We now have so many laws, regulations, agencies and reporting and compliance regimes that we resemble Old Testament Israel, which had so many laws (to get to God) that no one could keep them all.

But I am also for draining the swamp in the Tn House.

140 years of Democratic domination and subjugation (how many Republicans has Naifeh EVER appointed to anything?), particularly under the heavy hand of Jimmy Naifeh (since 1991, I think) is way too long.

How he didn't get caught up in the Tn Waltz, with his friends, is beyond me.

Looks like we will have to wait until 2010.

It's too bad, because Naifeh really is a thug.
