RSS Feeds
Raiding states' rights?
Discuss of this week's Dust-Up.
Comments will close after two weeks.
1.
I think that Marijuana should be legalized!!
2. States Rights? Massive expansion of the Federal Government's powers? These issues were solved when the southern states lost the war to protect federalism. The 10th amendment doesn't exist anymore. And the laws necessary and proper to rule the land are infinite.
3. the government can not indict anyone. an indictment must come from a grand jury, if its a dumbed down selection of peers they'll follow lockstep... but if one informed peer rejects, then no indictment. also, stay out of their jurisdiction. ban their attempts to apply it. if its applied and your silent, well... expect a conviction. and notice how the have to convice, via the UCC. (a worthy investigation UCC 102-7 and its concepts of "Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207,") a California sovereign state citizen has his/her liberty safe guarded in the bill of rights, unlimited contracts, and specifically the 9th amendment.
4. The "right" to take drugs is also irrelevant because marijuana is now de facto legal in California and there is nothing the Feds can do about it. The marijuana market has surfaced in public and the Feds don't begin to have enough resources to stop it. They know it themselves. The war on marijuana is all but over.
5. Did I mention that your 650 character limit is stupid and doesn't function properly? It makes a forum fit only for the half-witted.
6. For references on the topic, where they discuss the constitutional issues, see the short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm and the chapters dealing with the Harrison Act at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
7. The "right" to possess or use drugs is irrelevant. Why? Because nobody has any "right" to manufacture or sell anything they want. If the manufacture and sale of drugs is forbidden then the crime occurs when the drugs are made or bought, not when they are taken.
8. Your 650 character limit is both stupid and doesn't function properly.
9. "Conservatives who consider themselves strict constructionists, federalists or foes of big government usually decry this development except when it comes to their pet issues, such as drugs." 'Nuff said. P.S. With the Bush Administration's "disapproval" rating at 69%, I suggest he go build some houses with Habitat for Humanity and coast the rest of his term.
10. Immoral laws can be ignored-- but only at the cost of sacrificing the rule of law. If it is okay to break laws we do not like, what would be wrong with others breaking laws that we like.
Submitted by: Krystal
2. States Rights? Massive expansion of the Federal Government's powers? These issues were solved when the southern states lost the war to protect federalism. The 10th amendment doesn't exist anymore. And the laws necessary and proper to rule the land are infinite.
Submitted by: Madison
3. the government can not indict anyone. an indictment must come from a grand jury, if its a dumbed down selection of peers they'll follow lockstep... but if one informed peer rejects, then no indictment. also, stay out of their jurisdiction. ban their attempts to apply it. if its applied and your silent, well... expect a conviction. and notice how the have to convice, via the UCC. (a worthy investigation UCC 102-7 and its concepts of "Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207,") a California sovereign state citizen has his/her liberty safe guarded in the bill of rights, unlimited contracts, and specifically the 9th amendment.
Submitted by: shane
4. The "right" to take drugs is also irrelevant because marijuana is now de facto legal in California and there is nothing the Feds can do about it. The marijuana market has surfaced in public and the Feds don't begin to have enough resources to stop it. They know it themselves. The war on marijuana is all but over.
Submitted by: Cliff Schaffer
5. Did I mention that your 650 character limit is stupid and doesn't function properly? It makes a forum fit only for the half-witted.
Submitted by: Cliff Schaffer
6. For references on the topic, where they discuss the constitutional issues, see the short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm and the chapters dealing with the Harrison Act at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Submitted by: Cliff Schaffer
7. The "right" to possess or use drugs is irrelevant. Why? Because nobody has any "right" to manufacture or sell anything they want. If the manufacture and sale of drugs is forbidden then the crime occurs when the drugs are made or bought, not when they are taken.
Submitted by: Cliff Schaffer
8. Your 650 character limit is both stupid and doesn't function properly.
Submitted by: Cliff Schaffer
9. "Conservatives who consider themselves strict constructionists, federalists or foes of big government usually decry this development except when it comes to their pet issues, such as drugs." 'Nuff said. P.S. With the Bush Administration's "disapproval" rating at 69%, I suggest he go build some houses with Habitat for Humanity and coast the rest of his term.
Submitted by: Sandi Lopez
10. Immoral laws can be ignored-- but only at the cost of sacrificing the rule of law. If it is okay to break laws we do not like, what would be wrong with others breaking laws that we like.
Submitted by: Michael Ejercito
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT