Not if Eric Holder has his way .

My Way News - Pot votes in 2 states challenge US drug war (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121108/DA2DHN7G3.html)

Will the President reign in his Attorney General from forcing yet another showdown between the national government and the states over Federalism issues ? I expect not . Obama envisions himself in some ways like a later -day Richard Nixon... espcially in his constructing of an Imperial Presidency. .

Hello tom:

Interesting article. We await the feds.

excon

Are you going to be bitterly clinging to your guns when they come?

Hello again, Steve:

Chill out.. You lost. Get over it.

excon

You sound juts like the uniter-in-chief, Barack "I won" Obama.

We can always apply "don't ask don't tell" to pot like we did to gays can't we?

Some people make mountains out of mole hills. What this means is the local police won't be looking for pot unless they stumble on a plantation, the fed's can still chase the mules through those hills. Surely there are other instances in law where state law differs.

Hello again,

UPDATE. Today, it's LEGAL. Or is it? The state says yes. The feds say no. How am I to tell?

Uhhh, what was the question?

excon

Hello again,

UPDATE. Today, it's LEGAL. Or is it? The state says yes. The feds say no. How am I to tell?

Uhhh, what was the question??

excon

Maybe if you light up in the presence of local police they'll protect you from the feds.

Hello again, Steve:


Maybe if you light up in the presence of local police they'll protect you from the feds. The best we've got is our two senators, NEITHER of which is doing a damn thing to support their own state in this regard...

Whereas, the Colorado lawmakers have taken more decisive action. Three house members backed a bill to prevent the fed's from pre-empting state law. Of the 10 representatives who authored the bill, NONE are from Washington.

Maybe Patty Murry should smoke a joint and work on THIS instead running headlong over the cliff.

Excon

Ex I don't see the problem, possession for your own use is legal, trafficking in any form isn't, so you can possess it but you can't buy it at the corner store. It is perfectly clear. Maybe you can grow your own, maybe not,

No . The problem is that the Feds still have possession laws... and as we all know ;the left believes in the supremacy of the Federal Government .

no . The problem is that the Feds still have posession laws ... and as we all know ;the left believes in the supremacy of the Federal Government .

Kind of puts them in a knot, like running from raising taxes and cutting defense spending. .

These things are question of enforcement, so if you get caught in an FBI or a Federal drugs bust you will be done for possession, but the local cops aren't going to be worried about small quantities unless there is dealing. This is why having state laws and federal laws can create a mess, but you average teen isn't going to start life of crime for possession

The federal law can be changed to take marijuana off the control list, but that's up to the congress. Until then the feds have to do their job.

You want Congress who can't agree on a change to tax rates to change the law on drugs, good luck with that

Jefferson and Madison argued that if the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other limits on government power. States have always had the power of nullification of Federal Law. there were states that nullified prohibition long before the amendment was reversed.
Now everyone here knows what I think of legalizing pot. But that is not the issue here . The people of Washington have had their say.

It could be said the people had their say recently, it doesn't stop obstructionism. By your own words Tom you have both said that the federal law supercedes the state law and the state law supercedes the federal law. I guess it is that common good argument all over again. Who is the common, the people of the state or the people of the country. Seriously I don't know why you have a federal country

Yeah there are some things that are Federal perusal . I understand it can be confusing.. But all one has to do is look at the defined powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution and the 10 th amendment as a guide.

What does it matter if people do their own thing anyway, you had a war because some states wanted to leave, those people obviously thought the state transcended the constitution. You should have let them go

Secession is not the answer. The Federal Government knowing it's place is the answer. Reality tells me that the people are deciding the marijuana laws at the state level in defiance of the Federal law. It's not just Washington and Colorado. There are now 17 states, and the District of Columbia that have legalized medical pot in defiance of Federal law. So now the Justice Dept has a choice to make.
This week the people of Seattle gathered at the Space Needle and puffed away . Not only were the Feds a no show ,but the city itself ,after threatening to enforce the public smoking ban ( penalty a $100 ticket) ,did nothing to stop it.

Now will the Obots suddenly say that because it's Federal law that theyhave no choice but to enforce it ? Well then why haven't they employed the same logic to immigration laws when cities declare themselves 'sanctuary cities .Why isn't the Justice Dept defending DOMA (laws that were also passed by Congress )? Best guess is that the leader of the Choom gang will let this one ride .

Hello again, tom:


Best guess is that the leader of the Choom gang will let this one ride .IF they let this "ride", the war against marijuana is OVER. If THAT war is over, then the ENTIRE war on drugs is over... Now, that would make ME happy, but I believe there are too many vested interests to let it "ride". Letting it ride means LIVELY HOODS would disappear. We're talking about the DEA, the prison industrial complex, the local cops who depend on drug money seizures for operating expenses, defense lawyers and prosecutors, judges and politicians...

Plus, how does the country just say it was WRONG after SOOOO much devastation? Nope, they'll NEVER admit they were wrong. I believe the feds will STOP the states.

Excon

Yes Ex corruption is a blast isn't it, too many on the teat, to do the right thing, you're whole country has gone to hell boozing and smoking dope

Secession is not the answer. The Federal Government knowing it's place is the answer. Reality tells me that the people are deciding the marijuana laws at the state level in defiance of the Federal law. It's not just Washington and Colorado. There are now 17 states, and the District of Columbia that have legalized medical pot in defiance of Federal law. So now the Justice Dept has a choice to make.
This week the people of Seattle gathered at the Space Needle and puffed away . Not only were the Feds a no show ,but the city itself ,after threatening to enforce the public smoking ban ( penalty a $100 ticket) ,did nothing to stop it.

Now will the Obots suddenly say that because it's Federal law that theyhave no choice but to enforce it ? Well then why haven't they employed the same logic to immigration laws when cities declare themselves 'sanctuary cities .Why isn't the Justice Dept defending DOMA (laws that were also passed by Congress )? Best guess is that the leader of the Choom gang will let this one ride .


Hi Tom,

The federal government knowing its place comes under Amendment Number..

No it doesn't signal the end of Federal laws against dangerous drugs. Do you hear a big outcry for the legalization of coke and other dangerous narcotics ? Nope and you won't . Enough people now think that laws against marijuana are misguided . And it is only pot where the laws are being changed. Trust me ;the FDA and other drug enforcement agencies are only gaining power in this country under Obama's leadership .Oh the Feds will drop the hammer on anyone who goes past the state law. But tokers can sleep well at night if they stay inside the parameters of the state law.

hi tom,

the federal government knowing its place comes under amendment number..........?

10

10


They will probably get you on the Commerce Clause. Or the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Tut

Hello again, tom:

In MY view, they're legalizing marijuana because they've come to the conclusion that prohibition doesn't work. You think they're doing it because prohibition DOES work, but that marijuana isn't too bad.

I remind you that the feds have pot listed as a schedule #1 drug, along with heroine and cocaine, as drugs with NO medical benefits. They CANNOT maintain THAT status quo. If they do, then they're admitting that they lied about THOSE drugs too (and they have).

They'll have to DO something. I think it'll be the drug warrior's last stand.

excon

Ex marjie has the same medical benefits as morphine and cocaine, heroin and asprin. The all help with pain, but they are not being used for this purpose, they are being used to stupify a population and if the recent vote is any indication it is working. So make it available on prescription, but understand it has some very undesirable characteristics. Look recently they found exterosy was not addictive, comeon tell me another one

Hello again, tom:

In MY view, they're legalizing marijuana because they've come to the conclusion that prohibition doesn't work. You think they're doing it because prohibition DOES work, but that marijuana isn't too bad.

I remind you that the feds have pot listed as a schedule #1 drug, along with heroine and cocaine, as drugs with NO medical benefits. They CANNOT maintain THAT status quo. If they do, then they're admitting that they lied about THOSE drugs too (and they have).

They'll have to DO something. I think it'll be the drug warrior's last stand.

excon

Hi Ex,

Someone will challenge the legitimacy of the states to introduce such legislation.If it isn't now it will be down the track at some stage.

Tut

Hello again, clete, & Tut:

Look. Nobody is going to argue that those drugs should be legal because they're SAFE. They should be legal because making them ILLEGAL doesn't work. It's really no more difficult than that.

I DO agree with both you and tom.. They will NOT give up their drug war. I cannot imagine that THEY'LL make the distinctions about pot that I am, my state is, and every other intelligent person is.

Tut, when and if the feds move, I believe it WILL be a civil suit against the state(s). I think we'll find out VERY soon.

excon

They will probably get you on the Commerce Clause. Or the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Tut

Yeah I know how the Feds have distorted those clauses beyond all recognition or intent with the blessing of SCOTUS .

yeah I know how the Feds have distorted those clauses beyond all recognition or intent with the blessing of SCOTUS .


Well, I guess that's the way it goes. The Federalists were never going to be happy with the ratification of the Constitution unless they had some input. They created a niche that was always going to burgeon given the passage of time. Most things becomes clear in hindsight.


Tut

And the Constitution would never had been passed without the promise of a Bill of Rights that gave us the 1st 10 amendments. That is why I referenced Jefferson and Madison. Madison was in Congress and led the charge to get the amendments in Congress' 1s session.

yeah I know how the Feds have distorted those clauses beyond all recognition or intent with the blessing of SCOTUS .

At what point isn't buying and selling a substance commerce, it is not a distortion to say trafficking in drugs is commerce. Your problem Tom is you think that the Constitution shouldn't be taken as a whole but you can use whatever convenient little snippet for your own benefit. I find it amazing that my country has a constitution somewhat similar to yours and yet it is rarely referred to in debates and very few laws need to be referred for adjudication.

Good for Australia. Under American progressive leadership everything and anything can be defined as commerce. They've used it since Roosevelt to give the Federal Government unlimited power.

I find it amazing that my country has a constitution somewhat similar to yours and yet it is rarely referred to in debates and very few laws need to be referred for adjudication.

I think the reason is that we don't have a Bill of Rights.The American Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment. Basically this means that faith as a basis for understand politics, the physical world and morality were replaced by human reason.I don't think we can underestimate the impact of the French Revolution here in this process.

The American Civil War probably had some impact on our thinking before we decided to enact a constitution. Rather than a Bill of Rights we have precedent and tradition. Some people may see such things as 'rights' not being included in a constitution as a problem.

The problem with having a constitution that grew out of the Enlightenment is that anything established by reason must necessarily have the potential to be changed by reason. What was regarded as 'reasoned' in one generation may well be rejected as unreasonable by future generations. I think this is the trend we are seeing the moment. Once you establish something through a reasoned approach you automatically plant the seeds of change.


Tut

So the founders weren't stupid after all, they left a get out clause and when they are finished with the commerce clause there is the general welfare clause. What the problem is is the Bill of Rights which cuts across the original intent

I think the reason is that we don't have a Bill of Rights.The American Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment. Basically this means that faith as a basis for understand politics, the physical world and morality were replaced by human reason.I don't think we can underestimate the impact of the French Revolution here in this process.



I have a little difficulty with the statement product of the enlightenment. I'm sure the americans of the day were at pains to avoid the excesses of the French Revolution, this is why they allowed the population to retain certain liberties. As to the Bill of Rights we have unabated continuence of the common law rights, whereas the americans had to restate and establish these rights


The American Civil War probably had some impact on our thinking before we decided to enact a constitution. Rather than a Bill of Rights we have precedent and tradition. Some people may see such things as 'rights' not being included in a constitution as a problem.

Undoubtedly the american civil war is the reason why we don't have an explicit right to bear arms, seen in the light of Eureka, Kelly and Castle Hill, they would have avoided that


The problem with having a constitution that grew out of the Enlightenment is that anything established by reason must necessarily have the potential to be changed by reason. What was regarded as 'reasoned' in one generation may well be rejected as unreasonable by future generations. I think this is the trend we are seeing the moment. Once you establish something through a reasoned approach you automatically plant the seeds of change.


Tut

The problem is that the changes come about by legislation, a political process, rather than constitutional change and this creates a contention between original intent and current intent.

The law today allows certain things and bans certain things that would have been unthinkable to the american founders

Clete and Tut ,


I don't think we can underestimate the impact of the French Revolution here in this process.

I have a little difficulty with the statement product of the enlightenment. I'm sure the americans of the day were at pains to avoid the excesses of the French Revolution, this is why they allowed the population to retain certain liberties. As to the Bill of Rights we have unabated continuence of the common law rights, whereas the americans had to restate and establish these rights

The French Revolution was 1789 . The US Constitution was 1787 . Now the French Revolution did have an impact on the attitudes of the founders during Washington's adm ,and later Adams' .(there was a clear francophile and anglophile divide) But it did not impact the writing of the constitution.


Once you establish something through a reasoned approach you automatically plant the seeds of change.


What the problem is is the Bill of Rights which cuts across the original intent
I've said it before . There is a process in place for constitutional change. Some of the amendments I don't like . But I accept them as the constitutional law of the land . What I don't accept is a rewrite of the constitution by lifetime appointed ,unelected black robed oligarchs .

the problem is that the changes come about by legislation, a political process, rather than constitutional change and this creates a contention between original intent and current intent.

The law today allows certain things and bans certain things that would have been unthinkable to the american founders
Yup ; The Legislature ,the Executive ,the Judiciary was not given such power .

Hello again,

The feds ain't gonna let it happen (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0). I didn't figure they would.

excon

The problem with having a constitution that grew out of the Enlightenment is that anything established by reason must necessarily have the potential to be changed by reason. What was regarded as 'reasoned' in one generation may well be rejected as unreasonable by future generations. I think this is the trend we are seeing the moment. Once you establish something through a reasoned approach you automatically plant the seeds of change.


Tut

We have that, the amendment process. By design it's a very difficult process because words mean something. This is what they wrote and this is what they intended to be the law of the land, not this mythical living, breathing thing for progressives want to bend to their will.

Hello again,

The feds ain't gonna let it happen (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0). I didn't figure they would.

excon

So do you believe in the lib definition of the supremacy clause or not ?

Hello again, tom:

Remind me what it is and what the libs believe. Does that mean I think federal law trumping state law is GOOD?

I wouldn't argue on 10th Amendment issues (if that's what this is). I'd argue on Commerce Clause issues... The right wing stood fast complaining that the president didn't have the right to MANDATE that citizens PURCHASE stuff. To me, I argued that if it was OK for the feds to MANDATE that you CAN'T buy stuff, then it's only a short leap away from them mandating that you MUST buy stuff.

And, that's what they did. However, Constitutionally, I think they CAN'T.

excon

Look at this . 64 % of Americans believe that the Feds shouldn't have supremacy over state marijuana laws.
Poll: Americans side with states in pot laws - Political Eye - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558192-10391739/poll-americans-side-with-states-in-pot-laws/)

Supremacy clause is Article VI, Section 2...
This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It only really comes into conflict with the states when the Federal government exceeds it's constitutional authority .

Deleted by user

We have that, the amendment process. By design it's a very difficult process because words mean something. This is what they wrote and this is what they intended to be the law of the land, not this mythical living, breathing thing for progressives want to bend to their will.


If you are saying that words mean something in their historical context then I would agree with that. Anything more than that is a different kettle of fish.


Tut

We have a process in place to determine if the states, or feds exceed their constitutional powers. Scotus.

Tal that process only works if someone complains, they don't just seek out every instance

It starts in the lower courts, and works its way up. That's just a process to address the complaints.

SCOTUS is/was not the final arbiter in our system . It is just one co-equal branch of the government. That is why Marbury v Madison was such a destructive decision.

Yes all they can really do is say try again

SCOTUS is/was not the final arbiter in our system . It is just one co-equal branch of the govenment. That is why Marbury v Madison was such a destructive decision.


Tom, you keep mentioning the Marbury v Madison decision, but that was over two hundred years ago. Don't you think it is time to move on? Obviously there was an underestimation of the power of the judiciary.

Tut

No I shouldn't move on.. that was an unresolved power grab. This one should be and is a non-partisan issue. The root of the imperial judiciary can be found in that decision. It was probably the 1st time in Western history that a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional” without a demonstration that a particular statue conflicted with the language of the constitutions or federal law.It gave the only unelected branch of government absolute power . Everyone should be appalled at that amt of power concentrated into a few hands .

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction]. … The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
(Jefferson)

No I shouldn't move on ..that was an unresolved power grab. This one should be and is a non-partisan issue. The root of the imperial judiciary can be found in that decision. It was probably the 1st time in Western history that a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional” without a demonstration that a particular statue conflicted with the language of the constitutions or federal law.It gave the only unelected branch of government absolute power . Everyone should be appalled at that amt of power concentrated into a few hands .
(Jefferson)


Hi tom,

The language of any constitution can be problematic at times, but I think there are different issues when it comes to Marbury V Madison.

Be that as it may the Jefferson quote reminds me somewhat of Cicero's letters to Caesar. I can see a similar Cicerone appeal to shared governance and the fight against the self -serving individual (s) and the dilemma of how to curve such excesses.

Jefferson was obviously a learned man and no doubt familiar Cicero's understanding of constitutional government.Therefore, I am somewhat surprised upon reading this particular quote that he appeals for restraint.

Did he really expect that SCOTUS would ever be content to be a 'do little' arm of government? Would he not have been aware of the likelihood that unlimited power (once realized) is likely to corrupt those who posses it?

To say the very least it seems to be a fairly significant oversight.

Where I find fault is that neither the executive or legislature ever put SCOTUS back in it's place. Andrew Jackson came close after 'Worchester v Georgia '... But by then it was too late . You know "Precedence" and all that nonsense. Jackson famously stated "... the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," . But in the end ;Jackson and the State of Georgia gave in to the will of the Judiciary.

More eighteenth century rhetoric, those fellows were sure full of it, weren't they?

more eigtheenth century rhetoric, those fellows were sure full of it, weren't they?

Eighteenth century wisdom is not irrelevant. You believe the bible has plenty of wisdom, no?

Yes but I think the author has more credence

yes but I think the author has more credence

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

yes but I think the author has more credence

But you're obviously wiser than our founding fathers.

Jesus didn't write the bible, the church did. So there were MANY authors.

But you're obviously wiser than our founding fathers.

Well that could even be so, I have the benefit of hindsight. It is interesting that 120 years after your constitution was written, it was used as a model in my nation but a right to bear arms wasn't included, they had already seen your civil war and a few indications of rebellion and insurrection in their own backyard and backed off on that one. They also didn't see the need to let the populace do whatever seemed good to them at the time, so the idea that substance abuse could be legalised in the constitution hadn't occurred to them either