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.
But it will get even worse when they hear that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Fed govt can't regulate anything under the Commerce Clause unless it has crossed a state line... and even then they can only regulate its passage over that state line, but not the legality of its possession or non-commerce usage.
That is the conclusion that the pot heads are ultimately fighting for. Some day we may owe them a huge debt of gratitude, as their campaign winds up freeing more Americans from government oppression (and not just involving MJ) than anyone since Thomas Jefferson.
The implications of the issue affect the 2nd amendment and even abortion.
You can’t simultaneously claim state rights and deny federal rights enumerated at the same time. That type of inconsistency is what makes them liberals, I suppose.
While I believe the IRS cannot share information about those paying taxes on illegally obtained gains that doesn't mean they can't go after those who don't.
More and more states are passing laws saying marijuana is legal in their state. Several such state laws are going into effect today, Jan. 1, 2018. Yet the Fed govt still has its laws on the books, which have been there for decades, saying MJ is forbidden in the entire country.
The Constitution gives the Fed no authority to regulate substances like MJ at all. And the 10th amendment specifically says that any power not mentioned in the Constitution is FORBIDDEN to the Federal govt, though it can be exercised by "the States and the People" if they want to.
The Fed govt has had to twist itself into various knots trying to pretend they are only regulating substances that come under the Interstate Commerce clause, or under a misinterpretation of the so-called Welfare Clause. But increasing numbers of cases, such as US v. Lopez in 1995 and more, have been chipping away at the idea that those clauses give the Fed broad power to regulate almost anything.
Could the pot heads be on the cutting edge of court cases that will eventually decide that the 10th amendment means what it says? That the Fed govt has been overstepping its bounds, not only on marijuana, but on everything from the environment to workplace regulation to zoning to minimum wage and more? And that it must stop regulating and restricting all such things unless the people want to add an amendment to the Constitution?
Count on the heads to fight hard for their drug, and to get together and pony up big bucks for expensive lawyers to take their cases all the way to the Supreme Court... and win. And the most effective weapon they have, is to point out that the Fed govt doesn't have the authority to restrict pot, so its laws to that effect are null and void.
Wouldn't it be ironic if a bunch of druggies who want to get high (sometimes using the excuse of MJ having medical benefits for certain cancer patients), wound up stripping the Federal government of most of the usurpations it has put in place to impose liberalism on the entire country?
There is a reason the federal government had to amend the constitution, to be involved in alcohol. First they outlawed it and when they found the unintended consequences of liberty the hard way, the had an amendment to regulate it and remove the ban federally. States and counties and cities could ban it.
So, it will take a constitutional amendment to let the federal government have any say so in hemp production. It is a 10th amendment issue.
While I believe the IRS cannot share information about those paying taxes on illegally obtained gains that doesn't mean they can't go after those who don't.
The IRS didn't prosecute him. The DOJ did. Guess what that means? The IRS shares info on illegal activity.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The IRS didn't prosecute him. The DOJ did. Guess what that means? The IRS shares info on illegal activity.
I never said the IRS was prohibited from sharing information about those who didn't pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, did I?
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.
