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.
Courts have ruled many things the people voted to be legal, illegal. I don't see why states that vote for drugs to be legal should have rights other states don't have. If it is against the law; it is against American law, period. Same for illegal immigration. Remember states' rights were defeated in the Civil War. Sometimes it seems there is one set of laws for the south and another set for other states.
Our state's citizens have voted for many things to have it turned around by the courts. Many states have voter I. D. laws but we are not allowed this in North Carolina. I am tired of NJ students that are not legal citizens of this state voting in our elections when they should do a mail in vote to their own state. NJ people have made a total mess of their state. I want them to leave NC alone. We don't need their votes.
Currently the feds have asserted control over marijuana. If the states believe they have a right, they need to challenge the federal government and win in court.
"Asserting" control and having actual control are two VERY different things! Face it, without the states to help them enforce their will, they have no power to exert it. Once it's legal in all states the feds will realize their powerlessness and knuckle under, we need to force them into compliance and acceptance that "this is the way things are now". Remember, without people backing them, they have no "authority".
What are they going to do to prevent it? Declare martial law in all those states, over marijuana? Get friggin' real, there are ACTUAL problems going on that need addressed, yet the feds want to waste their time fighting marijuana?
I don't think taking it to court will solve the problem, they'll just give the same old song and dance of "Muh authority!" What's needed is massive civil/state defiance and disobedience. We're going to have to FORCE them into changing, they're not going to change by going through legal means because they see themselves as Judge Dredd a.k.a. "I am the law!"
Courts have ruled many things the people voted to be legal, illegal.
ALL authority (feds, states, courts, etc.) need to know that without people backing them, their power is nonexistent. We need massive civil/statewide disobedience of this federal law to let the feds know their BS will not be tolerated and that the will of the majority will prevail, regardless of how much they drag their feet and cry "Muh authority trumps yours!" Keep telling yourself that, in practice we know it's not true! ALL authority needs to be in constant fear of losing their control/power, then they'll be more careful about the decisions they make!
More importantly, they can't give you a good reason WHY marijuana should stay illegal besides "Because I said so!" That was BS when your parents told you that, and it's no different here. If they cannot articulate logical reasons why marijuana is illegal (especially while alcohol and tobacco are) then they don't have a leg to stand on.
P.S. It's not because they "care about the American people" or they're trying to "protect the public health/children", it's because they aren't getting their "cut" of the profits. You can buy all the alcohol, tobacco, fast food, etc. that you want because the feds are getting a chunk of it, they couldn't care less about you! Follow the money (or in their case, the lack of) and you'll see the true motivations behind their actions!
Totally agree, you can't. But drug laws are not mentioned in the Constitution.
Very true.
Quote:
So it's up to the feds and the states to work this out,
No, it's up to the Fed govt to notice the Constitution doesn't give them any authority to regulate pot etc., and to repeal all their laws that do so anyway.
The way the Fed govt "notices" this, is have it pointed out by a Federal court, such as the Supreme Court.
Could the pot heads who oppose those Federal laws because they want to get high, be the ones who eventually start the chain of cases disallowing the Feds from making certain laws, and eventually get modern liberalism ruled unconstitutional?
The pot heads are going to have to push it to the point of Federal legalization, if they want to get out from under Federal threat even in a state that says it's OK. That's why I said more cases will be coming.
Gonzales v. Raich never addressed my main point here: That the Fed govt has no authority to regulate MJ. Only a twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause excuses the govt's obvious usurpation of power.
When cannabis had been made illegal in all 50 states by feds in 1937, it had already been made illegal by most states. If it works the other way, too, if most states legalize it, feds might say 1 law for whole country, so back to legal again.
My problem with the Commerce Clause giving Feds the right to *regulate* interstate commerce, is when I look in dictionary under regulate, it does *not* say "to prohibit". Could we get Congress to pass a law that says Supreme Court must use dictionary definitions in their rulings?
State's rights are great until it's something republicans disagree with. You can end the thread on this note, because they've proven themselves to think this way time and time again when you look at what they post. I see we're still debating the commerce clause aspect of it. I've got news for you, people are shuttling it from legal states to non legal states all the time. I guess we better make it illegal so the mexicans can corner the market again.
I am conservative, I have no issue with a state making pot legal because of the 10 the, however, under the 10, if you cross a state line into a state where it's illegal and you are impaired due to pot, you can be busted. As a conservative, I highly welcome any attempts to reestablish the intent of the 10th.
Me too, our state legalized pot years ago and I have no problem with it. The Feds need to back off IMO....this is a state to state issue.
Totally agree, you can't. But drug laws are not mentioned in the Constitution. So it's up to the feds and the states to work this out, which is what we've been seeing over the past few decades. It's a developing process.
Actually, Federal laws ARE specifically mentioned in the Constitution: The Supremacy Clause, Article VI.
"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."
States are never required to enforce federal law. This is what Trump supporters just cannot grasp about the sanctuary state/city issue. Requiring states to enforce federal law, or to enact certain laws, is called commandeering and violates the 10th Amendment.
States/Cities can still run afoul of Federal immigration law that has nothing to do with enforcement. Any city or state official or member of a legislating body responsible for "declaring" any city or state a "sanctuary" is violating the following Federal law:
Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
...With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
Currently the feds have asserted control over marijuana. If the states believe they have a right, they need to challenge the federal government and win in court.
Agree.
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.
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.
