Nullification is the duty of every citizen and every state (cocaine, invasion)
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.
And folks on juries are free to find facts the way that they like in marijuana cases. That doesn't change the fact that for all intents and purposes marijuana laws are Constitutional.
Where do you find, in the Constitution, support for marijuana laws?
While I appreciate your philosophical believes that is not how the Constitution actually works. The Constitution is first and foremost a document that outlines what the federal government is, how it functions, how it is selected, what powers it has, which branches have which powers, the role of federalism, and what assurances the federal government will give to the states and citizens. Most of the protections of individual rights come later in various amendments. The Constitution as originally drafted is very vague as to specific grants of individual rights. Most of that comes from the Amendments so to suggest that the Constitution was created mainly to protect individual rights is false. The Constitution was originally drafted as a means of protecting the autonomy of states while at the same time creating a national framework that was strong enough ensure a functioning and independent country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic
The President shall make no law . . .
Congress shall make no law . . . .
The Supreme shall make no law . . .
The first ten amendments were CLARIFICATION.
It was the "perfectly clear" part of the original Constitution.
The basic fallacy with your belief is that laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, are up to each individual to decide whether they are valid laws. That's preposterous on it's face. If you dispute a law, the proper avenue is judicial review, not simply ignore the law. Nobody would ever pay a parking ticket if the ability to nullify the parking violation was legitimate.
But, if you disagree, maybe someone will visit you in prison, convicted of laws you personally nullified.
The basic fallacy with your belief is that laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, are up to each individual to decide whether they are valid laws. That's preposterous on it's face. If you dispute a law, the proper avenue is judicial review, not simply ignore the law. Nobody would ever pay a parking ticket if the ability to nullify the parking violation was legitimate.
But, if you disagree, maybe someone will visit you in prison, convicted of laws you personally nullified.
The American jury system was designed to thwart Government corruption.
In China, it's a top down, hanging kind of system.
We are more civilized.
By the way, in some states, a parking violation is a crime.
Trouble is, the courts have problems determining whether the car owner or the car user committed the crime.
Maybe the Roberts Court will determine that a car is a person.
Where do you find, in the Constitution, support for marijuana laws?
Ninth Amendment?
Tenth Amendment?
Where? Where?
Exactly. Using the ability to regulate trade to impose laws concerning personal consumption of any substance is a clear and unambiguous misuse of the law.
The bottom line goes back to the question of who owns your body? Does anything in the Constitution give the Federal Government ownership of the bodies of the people?
There is no such thing. The question was addressed by Madison who was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution." To attempt to solve this problem, Madison submitted this draft to Congress:
"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
The phrase "shall make no law" appears no where in the constitution and only once in the bill of rights. The one time it does appear is in reference to congress and restrictions on religion and free speech. Congress does have the constitutional right to pass laws that "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". It also has the right to create laws that "..regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
As for the right to nullification, no such right exist. The right that does exist is the right to a trial by your peers. Your peers will determine if your actions are just and if not, then your peers will decide the punishment. Stating that you can chose to ignore any law you determine to be unfit would result in all laws being void and anarchy.
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.
