 |
Not if Eric Holder has his way .
My Way News - Pot votes in 2 states challenge US drug war
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
Maybe if you light up in the presence of local police they'll protect you from the feds.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
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...Quote:
Maybe if you light up in the presence of local police they'll protect you from the feds.
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 .
Kind of puts them in a knot, like running from raising taxes and cutting defense spending. .Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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:
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...Quote:
Best guess is that the leader of the Choom gang will let this one ride .
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
10Quote:
Originally Posted by tut317
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Hi Ex,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Yeah I know how the Feds have distorted those clauses beyond all recognition or intent with the blessing of SCOTUS .Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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 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 rightsQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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 thatQuote:
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 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.Quote:
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 law today allows certain things and bans certain things that would have been unthinkable to the american founders
Clete and Tut ,
Quote:
I don't think we can underestimate the impact of the French Revolution here in this process.
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.Quote:
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
Quote:
Once you establish something through a reasoned approach you automatically plant the seeds of change.
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 .Quote:
What the problem is is the Bill of Rights which cuts across the original intent
Yup ; The Legislature ,the Executive ,the Judiciary was not given such power .Quote:
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:07 PM. |