Am I the only non-smoker who thinks "smoking bans" are a bunch of BS?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

A town is not an actor. A town doesn't "pass ordinances". A group of people certainly has a right to agree upon some rules for interactions.

They don't have any right to impose those rules on other people who don't agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many times does the word "right" appear in there? This is not a semantical quibble. The words were chosen *very* carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? And do you disagree that the states and the people have the right to create laws through local government?

EDIT: are we mixing quotes from our different posts by mistake? My saying this: "Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?" was intended only for response to your response about the Amendment X. This can become a problem when multiple responses are present in one thread, I think. I'm already getting lost in the maze.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issue over "given" or "reserved". My issue is with your characterization of governments as entities that can have rights, and specifically with your allusion to the constitution to back that up. There is NO such mention of rights as something *governments* can have in the constitution. As I said, the framers were very careful to avoid any such implication.

Q: How many times does the word "right" appear in Amendment X?
A: Zero.