Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Sessions clears the path for the Feds to go after weed

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The 14th amendment according to FDR's packed supreme court nullified the 10th.

Do, ah, do you have a link to this decision?

2 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Wrong again. 

The 10th amendment states that all powers not expressly written into the constitution belong to the states. It has been long established that the federal government is within its power to regulate narcotics. The welfare clause of the constitution gives the power of the federal government to regulate narcotics. 

 

And then there's the interstate commerce clause - which Obama's policy seemed to follow the spirit of.

It's almost like the constitution was deliberately made to be flexible, so it could be interpreted according to the needs of the time...

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

What Sessions should really do is prosecute Holder and Obama for failing to uphold their oaths of office to uphold the laws of the land.

Good god you're a hypocrite. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Well it appears that the lawyers who were arguing your case didn't persuade the judges...because last I checked Marijuana is being sold in a lot of places.  Good luck if the DEA tries to shut down all the pot shops since growing in the backyard is also legal under state law.  What are they going to do if state law enforcement won't cooperate?  Not much

First there has been no court ruling.  If the states took it to court they would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bluerules009 said:

First there has been no court ruling.  If the states took it to court they would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Kansas and Nebraska already tried to sue Colorado and got laughed out of court.  They were trying to have the Feds overrule the state laws.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Good god you're a hypocrite. 

Explain?

I want the laws of the land enforced equally.  How does that make me a hypocrite?

In my view it is the best way to get the laws of the land changed instead of ignored.

 

The reason immigration is so +++++ed up and we have millions of illegal immigrants living here for decades is we ignore the law and don't enforce it.   The reason college athletes are allowed to be exploited by Universities is we ignore the law and don't enforce it.  The reason Jim Crow lasted so long is we ignored the law and didn't enforce it.

I am for enforcing the law even bad laws because that forces people to consider changing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Do, ah, do you have a link to this decision?

And then there's the interstate commerce clause - which Obama's policy seemed to follow the spirit of.

It's almost like the constitution was deliberately made to be flexible, so it could be interpreted according to the needs of the time...

You really have no idea what you are talking about. 

The interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce between states. You see before the constitution we had the articles of Confederation which did not let the federal government regulate interstate commerce. We had states printing their own currencies, making treaties with other states etc. The commerce clause was put into the constitution to make interstate commerce uniform between all of the states to encourage commerce. The commerce clause is really irrelevant to the Marijuana debate

The constitution was NOT designed to be flexible to the times. The people who wrote the constitution made it very difficult to amend it on purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Kansas and Nebraska already tried to sue Colorado and got laughed out of court.  They were trying to have the Feds overrule the state laws.

From your own link moron.

 

Because the Supreme Court has passed on the case, Nebraska and Oklahoma could now take it to a federal district court if they choose to,law experts say — something the states’ attorneys general hinted at on Monday .

“The complaint, on its face, presents a ‘controvers[y] between two or more States’ that this Court alone has authority to adjudicate,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the dissenting opinion. “The plaintiff States have alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another State. Whatever the merit of the plaintiff States’ claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave without so much as a word of explanation.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

Explain?

I want the laws of the land enforced equally.  How does that make me a hypocrite?

In my view it is the best way to get the laws of the land changed instead of ignored.

 

The reason immigration is so +++++ed up and we have millions of illegal immigrants living here for decades is we ignore the law and don't enforce it.   The reason college athletes are allowed to be exploited by Universities is we ignore the law and don't enforce it.  The reason Jim Crow lasted so long is we ignored the law and didn't enforce it.

I am for enforcing the law even bad laws because that forces people to consider changing them.

Because there is no possible way for all laws to be enforced equally. You know this, and I know this.  Furthermore, you're  of the opinion that if we took half of the cops in this country and fired them we'd be better off- meaning we'd have even less enforcement of laws. You're only calling for 100% enforcement of the laws that the liberals on this board think is stupid because it riles them up. You're not lambasting an HP for not pulling people over when they're going 3 over the speed limit. You're not all over homeowners doing their own minor electrical work. You're not pissed when cases go to settlement instead of  a judicial conclusion. You just "care" about total enforcement of immigration and marijuana because it irritates the people you like to irritate on this board. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

You really have no idea what you are talking about. 

The interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce between states. You see before the constitution we had the articles of Confederation which did not let the federal government regulate interstate commerce. We had states printing their own currencies, making treaties with other states etc. The commerce clause was put into the constitution to make interstate commerce uniform between all of the states to encourage commerce. The commerce clause is really irrelevant to the Marijuana debate

The constitution was NOT designed to be flexible to the times. The people who wrote the constitution made it very difficult to amend it on purpose. 

You don't get what I'm doing, do you? Not surprising, the conservatives who choose to engage their brains have been pretty quiet on this board for a while. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Kansas and Nebraska already tried to sue Colorado and got laughed out of court.  They were trying to have the Feds overrule the state laws.

So the state of Idaho could pass a law that all Idahoans are exempt from paying federal income taxes, or that we don;t have to follow the Civil Rights act???

By your own argument states should have the right to do this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

So the state of Idaho could pass a law that all Idahoans are exempt from paying federal income taxes, or that we don;t have to follow the Civil Rights act???

By your own argument states should have the right to do this

Well, it wouldn't matter if they did because the IRS would just ignore the law and enforce the state law.  State cops don't arrest people for federal tax issues.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Because there is no possible way for all laws to be enforced equally. You know this, and I know this.  Furthermore, you're  of the opinion that if we took half of the cops in this country and fired them we'd be better off- meaning we'd have even less enforcement of laws. You're only calling for 100% enforcement of the laws that the liberals on this board think is stupid because it riles them up. You're not lambasting an HP for not pulling people over when they're going 3 over the speed limit. You're not all over homeowners doing their own minor electrical work. You're not pissed when cases go to settlement instead of  a judicial conclusion. You just "care" about total enforcement of immigration and marijuana because it irritates the people you like to irritate on this board. 

Wow, you are really triggered.  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

You are making no sense.  It is not impossible to enforce all laws equally or at least make the attempt.  Getting rid of half the cops would not stop the rest from enforcing all laws equally.  I did not call for 100% enforcement, I called for all laws to be enforced with equal rigor.   Ignoring even a bad law leads to worse problems down the road as I pointed out.  It also leads to the bad laws staying on the books and like in this case coming up to bite you when a moron is placed in office.

You need to think a little more clearly son.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would like to see the Feds crackdown on those hoodlums that clean their fish using faucets that are not designated as fish-washing stations. These scofflaws have to pay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Well, it wouldn't matter if they did because the IRS would just ignore the law and enforce the state law.  State cops don't arrest people for federal tax issues.

I am assuming you meant enforce federal law,

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

You have no idea what you are talking about. We do have a system of checks and balances. However the federal law supersedes state law, it says so right in the constitution. It is called the Supremacy clause, and has nothing to do with settling disputes. You can have all the democratic processes you want in your state until the cows come home, if they are in violation of federal law they should be disregarded. This is why states don't print their own currency, have the power to declare war on another state, can't have a minimum wage below the federal level, ban paying federal income taxes, can't discriminate against minorities, the list could go on forever. 

 

Yikes, dude. No one is saying that federal law doesn't have the constitutional power to supersede state law or whatever giant leap you made to currency and war or other powers given to federal government. Your original post said the federal government can and should overrule states in this this instance. I maintain that they SHOULD not based on the fact that literally millions of voters said yes to it when given the opportunity.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Wow, you are really triggered.  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

You are making no sense.  It is not impossible to enforce all laws equally or at least make the attempt. 

Yes, it is. 

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Getting rid of half the cops would not stop the rest from enforcing all laws equally.  I did not call for 100% enforcement, I called for all laws to be enforced with equal rigor. 

No, you're not. 

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

 Ignoring even a bad law leads to worse problems down the road as I pointed out.  It also leads to the bad laws staying on the books and like in this case coming up to bite you when a moron is placed in office.

I'm aware that this is maybe 1/10th your thought process. You're just trying to rile. 

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You need to think a little more clearly son.

 

I am. I just know that you deliberately are hypocritical on these two issues to drive talk of actual legislative change. We've done rounds on this before. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...