Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Forum Community > Member Discussions > Current Events   »   Dear NeoCons, Cease and Desist.

 
Question Tools Search this Question Display Modes
Question
 
 
Old Jun 16, 2008, 08:56 PM
magprob's Avatar
magprob
Ultra Member
magprob is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,649
magprob See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.magprob See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.magprob See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Dear NeoCons, Cease and Desist.

We are working hard here in Idaho to reclaim our sovereignty also. Do the Neocons on AMHD think this is a bad idea? I am sure you do so, I would like to hear why.
By the way Oklahoma, I am proud of you and my hat is off as I bow down before you.

Oklahoma State House of Representatives - House Votes

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the
United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
that the federal government was created by the states specifically
to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as
agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York
v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and
some now pending from the present administration and from Congress
may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President
of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker

of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 10:35 AM   #11  
N0help4u
Ultra Member
N0help4u is offline
 
N0help4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: dark side of moon, Pa
Posts: 9,389
N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Send a message via Yahoo to N0help4u
I agree with Tomder that the problem is that the people go to the state that allows something and return to their state wanting it to be approved there.
Since states are wanting to make their own laws such as gay marriage.
Federal law should say that even if one state approves it that it is only for that state or even that states residents. They do it with the gun laws I am sure they could with most all the other laws if they wanted to.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 10:47 AM   #12  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,539
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
they can't do that however . There is something in the Constitution called the "full faith and credit clause" that was put in to avoid the possiblility of contracts in one state not being honored in others.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C
Quote:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

THAT is why Same Sex Marriage is NOT a state matter . It has to be decided nationally . Remember the wording of the 10th. It only applies to matters that are not given to the National government . A contract guarantee was deemed a national issue by the founders .
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 10:53 AM   #13  
N0help4u
Ultra Member
N0help4u is offline
 
N0help4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: dark side of moon, Pa
Posts: 9,389
N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Send a message via Yahoo to N0help4u
Anything that can has to be honored in other states should not be allowed by states then.
So I really don't see how they are getting away with the gay marriage thing.
They don't seem to follow any part of the constitution unless it suits their agenda
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 11:11 AM   #14  
excon
Expert
excon is online now
 
excon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: On the outside
Posts: 8,299
excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Washington has a medical marijuana law doesn't it ?
Hello tom:

Indeed. A law which the federal government does NOT recognise.

excon
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 11:13 AM   #15  
N0help4u
Ultra Member
N0help4u is offline
 
N0help4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: dark side of moon, Pa
Posts: 9,389
N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Send a message via Yahoo to N0help4u
I guess it is okay as long as you don't blow smoke across state lines then you might have to double check the laws.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:10 PM   #16  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,539
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Agreed .....again the issue is a conflict of competing "rights" . your beloved SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Government's inherent right to regulate interstate commerce trumps the possession rights of Washingtonians. The ruling does not overturn the law ;Just said that the state law does not provide a defense if the feds decide a violation of the laws enforced by the DEA has been committed ..

Do I agree with the decision ? Maybe ;but I certainly agree that at times the Federal Government and the courts have abused their authority of interstate commerce. Justice Stevens made it clear in his majority ruling that the remedy for pot heads is in US congressional action.

The most famous abuse of the clause of course was Roosevelt's New Deal policy that decided that a farmer could not grow wheat for personal consumption . Stevens concluded that the court was still bound by the decision that defined interstate commerce broadly to include, wheat farming. But Roosevvelt could do no wrong and neither can SCOTUS . Justice Thomas (the federalist in the court who you think is a dufus ) in dissent said if "the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."


Just curious ;How many Washintonians have been busted if they are following the State guidelines for the use of medical marijuana ? I bet none.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:33 PM   #17  
excon
Expert
excon is online now
 
excon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: On the outside
Posts: 8,299
excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.excon See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do I agree with the decision ? Maybe.

Just curious ;How many Washintonians have been busted if they are following the State guidelines for the use of medical marijuana ? I bet none.
Hello again, tom:

So, the state has the right to make pot legal, but the feds have the right to arrest those people that obey STATE law???? What kind of states rights are those?

Nope, you're wrong. The clinics who are distributing medical marijuana to patients pursuant to the law, ARE being arrested and closed down by the feds.

So, you righty's don't really believe in states rights, do you? You believe in the states rights YOU want them to have - nothing more. Something fishy about that. Course, you guys ARE fishy.

excon
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:38 PM   #18  
N0help4u
Ultra Member
N0help4u is offline
 
N0help4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: dark side of moon, Pa
Posts: 9,389
N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.N0help4u See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Send a message via Yahoo to N0help4u
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The clinics who are distributing medical marijuana to patients pursuant to the law, ARE being arrested and closed down by the feds.


yeah that seems to be the way it works anymore.
In my state you can buy fireworks, tinted windshield film over 80%, decorative car lights, etc.... and you get a fine for using what you legally can buy. That doesn't even get into the can of worms of the conflicting laws
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 01:02 PM   #19  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,539
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
I said maybe in this case I am and maybe not . Interstate commerce is designated to the Federal government ....am I correct ? I think I am .Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 So then it is a matter of judicial interpretation . No ;I don't think that States rights trump the enumerated powers of the Federal government . It is up to the States involved to make their case. In the case of Washinton and in cases in California I've read about Federal authorities tend to prosecute cases in which dispensaries are not in compliance with state law or in which there is some other aggravating factor. So I kinda doubt that the arrests were made when strict compliance to the State laws were observed . I know the game. Anyone walks in and claims to need it for medical purposes and the clinic gives them a perscription ..much like those idiot doctors who will give viagra to almost anyone claiming symptoms .Then the user tokes away and gets nailed driving a car and gets into an accident .

Owner of six US medical marijuana stores arrested - AOL News

  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 17, 2008, 02:27 PM   #20  
Choux
Ultra Member
Choux is offline
 
Choux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ChicagoLand
Posts: 2,066
Choux See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Choux See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Choux See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Time to see the *Big Picture* you guys.

Our country is the titanic after it hit the iceberg(Presidential failure to address the imported oil situation after Carter), the lights are still on and the music is playing, but ......we are going down fast without change.

.....the Fascists(formerly Conservatives)don't want to make changes so that we can save America before it hits bottom.
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors

Similar Questions
Question Asker Topic Answers Last Post
Dear All, nandhi1965 Introductions 5 May 14, 2008 09:20 AM
Should I write a cease and desist letter lindiethrock Bankruptcy & Debt 3 Feb 28, 2008 05:24 AM
dear sir marzcom Spyware, Viruses, etc. 1 Dec 12, 2007 01:10 AM
What does sending a cease and desist actually do? infoseeker Other Law 1 Oct 4, 2006 07:25 AM
cease and disist kenrhon Other Law 5 Sep 7, 2006 04:36 PM




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.