U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2017, 05:26 PM
 
66,180 posts, read 30,030,765 times
Reputation: 8577

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Unfortunately, I know her all too well. She feels the Supreme Court justices should be impeached if they donít see the law the way she does
It has nothing to do with how I see it. It has everything to do with impeaching SCOTUS Justices who violate their Oath to uphold the US Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2017, 05:26 PM
 
11,799 posts, read 4,977,746 times
Reputation: 17962
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
No. The baker case has nothing to do with the federal CRA superseding Colorado law, as Iíve told you numerous times. Why do you continue to shout the legal equivalent of ďthe earth is flat!Ē and make yourself look like the biggest fool?

This is a little different. A state certainly isnít required to prohibit something under state law just because itís illegal under federal law (nor can states be required to enforce federal law, as that would be commandeering and prohibited under the 10th Amendment). However, a state regulatory scheme that facilitates something like marijuana use when itís prohibited under federal law certainly could arguably be preempted thanks to the Supremacy Clause. And regardless, federal marijuana law can certainly be enforced in the states that have ďlegalizedĒ it.

Then again, what OP linked to seems to be about not extending a federal law that bars using federal funds for prosecuting those using or selling medical marijuana as allowed by state law. That is up to Congress.
Thank you Perry Mason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,157,676 times
Reputation: 4545
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Of course not. The federal CRA has no protections for LGBT, despite several bills in Congress over the years attempting to add that group as a protected class (both Dems and the GOP, whichever was in power, have declined to pass such legislation).
Which Iíve told you AGAIN AND AGAIN doesnít matter. The federal CRA does not matter!

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What I've told you MANY times is that due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI, the baker's First Amendment Rights supercede any Colorado state law:

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Iíve also told you MANY times that the First Amendment DOES supercede any Colorado state law. But the CRA has nothing to do with that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,157,676 times
Reputation: 4545
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It has nothing to do with how I see it. It has everything to do with impeaching SCOTUS Justices who violate their Oath to uphold the US Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
You are not remotely qualified to understand the Constitution.

And you are making it completely about the way you see it. The lawyers for the baker are not arguing what you are! No textualist Supreme Court justice has said what you are, nor will they!!! That doesn’t mean they may not side with the baker, but it won’t be because of anything to do with the CRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 05:38 PM
 
66,180 posts, read 30,030,765 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Which I’ve told you AGAIN AND AGAIN doesn’t matter. The federal CRA does not matter!
Constitutional Rights DO matter. In the baker v. a Colorado state agency case currently at SCOTUS, the baker's Constitutional Rights supercede Colorado state law via the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

I have no idea why you continue to be so confused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,157,676 times
Reputation: 4545
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Constitutional Rights DO matter. In the baker v. a Colorado state agency case currently at SCOTUS, the baker's Constitutional Rights supercede Colorado state law via the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

I have no idea why you continue to be so confused.
YOU are the confused one. Yes, the First Amendment does supercede the Colorado state law. I’ve said this again and again, including in the post you just quoted! But the First Amendment only extends to a certain point, as evidenced by case law such as Employment Division v. Smith (opinion written by Scalia). The arguments in the case revolve around how far the First Amendment extends.

None of this has anything to do with the CRA, as I’ve said repeatedly. Here are relevant parts of posts where I explained this to you in the other thread. I suggest you read these - you might learn something:

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The Supremacy Clause does mean the US Constitution and federal law preempt state law, but this would only apply in situations where there is a conflict (or in the case of field preemption, but that isn’t the case here either) between state and federal law. Just because the state law adds some protected classes doesn’t mean it conflicts with federal law.

If you are trying to argue that federal anti-discrimination laws protect the business owner’s religious beliefs, this isn’t the case. The law protects customers of the businesses, not the business owners. So there is no conflict.

Case law from the U.S. Supreme Court is also clear that a religious belief does not exempt you from compliance with a generally applicable state law. This law is applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs.

I know you’ll bring up RFRA. It’s irrelevant as the U.S. Supreme Court has already held it only applies to federal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I would love to know where you got the idea that the CRA is even relevant here. I’m just curious. If it was, don’t you think the baker’s lawyers would be using it?

In addition to bringing in the CRA for some unknown reason, you have argued that:

1) federal law is exactly on par with the Constitution and SCOTUS gets to just pick which it likes better from case to case!

2) states can’t enforce any state law that has any effect on someone’s practice of religion

As far as #2, really think about how ludicrous that sounds. There are religions that call for beating people and worse. I hope you, being THE self-anointed legal authority, at least have enough knowledge of law to know that most criminal law in our country is state law. Do you really think states cannot prosecute people for this sort of activity when it’s in the name of religion?

But you don’t even have to believe me. Why can’t you find cases where the lawyers argued the above? And if the CRA was at all relevant, much less if it provided the slam dunk you think it does, then, again, why wouldn’t the baker’s lawyers be using it? What you’re doing is analogous to arguing the earth is flat. You can’t even really debate when you just won’t get to a starting point where you’ve conceded things that essentially everyone accepts.

By the way, I’m sure you’ve heard of the 10th Amendment. It might interest you to know that the (federal) CRA was challenged on 10th Amendment grounds (the Heart of Atlanta Motel case), where it was argued that such laws were not within the purview of the federal government, meaning they only states could have similar laws. This argument was not successful, but that certainly does not mean that states can’t have their own anti-discrimination laws (and in fact thanks to the 10th Amendment, states can still have more expansive laws). And thanks to RFRA, states ultimately have MORE, not less, authority to regulate this kind of thing when religion comes into play. Most textualists love the 10th Amendment, except for you I guess.

This thread should be about debating the constitutionality of these laws using arguments that are actually legitimate (and there are legitimate arguments on both sides), or about debating the merits of these laws. It shouldn’t be spent screaming the equivalent of “the Earth is flat!” for dozens and dozens of pages.
Even though you brought the baker case into this thread, it isn’t relevant here so I won’t continue to stay off topic in this thread. And I won’t continue to discuss this with you here or there.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-10-2017 at 06:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 06:04 PM
 
66,180 posts, read 30,030,765 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
YOU are the confused one. Yes, the First Amendment does supercede the Colorado state law. Iíve said this again and again, including in the post you just quoted! But the First Amendment only extends to a certain point, as evidenced by case law such as Employment Division v. Smith (written by Scalia).
Only when SCOTUS Justices violate the Oath they've taken to uphold the Constitution. And they should be impeached for violating that Oath.

Tell me where, in the following, in Article VI, the US Constitution says "only extends to a certain point."

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Contrary to your absurd assertion, it actually very specifically states: "ANYTHING in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

ANYTHING.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,016 posts, read 12,360,207 times
Reputation: 18928
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. The federal government regulates marijuana and other drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. ß 811). And due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI, that federal law supercedes any local/state laws.
The legal basis for the Controlled Substances Act is the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power ďto regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.Ē Most controlled substances are imported from other countries or states, or the precursor substances are. Marijuana can be grown and packaged for sale within the boundaries of any state. It's the same reason you can legally grow the opium poppy anywhere in the US.

I'm sure they could dance around it and find a law that would stick, but the CSA is pretty weak if the states really decide to challenge it. There are enough states involved in recreational pot, not to speak of medical pot, that they could afford a serious legal challenge to the feds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,157,676 times
Reputation: 4545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
The legal basis for the Controlled Substances Act is the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Most controlled substances are imported from other countries or states, or the precursor substances are. Marijuana can be grown and packaged for sale within the boundaries of any state. It's the same reason you can legally grow the opium poppy anywhere in the US.

I'm sure they could dance around it and find a law that would stick, but the CSA is pretty weak if the states really decide to challenge it. There are enough states involved in recreational pot, not to speak of medical pot, that they could afford a serious legal challenge to the feds.
In general, the Commerce Clause is interpreted VERY broadly, to allow Congress to even regulate things that affect interstate commerce.

There’s been a challenge to the law solely over whether Congress could prohibit someone from growing medical marijuana at home, and even that challenge was unsuccessful. See Gonzales v. Raich.

I’m not supportive of banning pot. I’m just pointing out that precedent is pretty clear that Congress can do it.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-10-2017 at 10:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2017, 09:48 PM
 
14,231 posts, read 15,054,033 times
Reputation: 8283
He's wasting his time and our tax dollars.

What else is new with so many in DC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top