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.
The fact is that the Commerce Clause has been so incorrectly interpreted and construed that it is basically a blank check given to the feds on Government power and authority over the States. If we are to ever restore power to the states, a Constitutional amendment will be necessary to clarify the Commerce Clause in the extremely narrow terms it was intended.
The feds have no Constitutional authority whatsoever to change the legality of marijuana or any other drug. The war on drugs is unconstitutional and illegal. The Controlled Substances act is illegal, and it's all due to 18 little words in the Constitution that are being misinterpreted in a way as to give the feds virtually unlimited power.
Doesn't matter how spot on he/she is... The point is renderred moot by the fact that the Federal Government's laws prohibiting marijuana are illegal and unconstitutional to begin with. It's a State issue. The Constitution grants the federal government no such authority and the only way they can derive that authority is by misconstruing the commerce clause on the presupposition that marijuana grown in one state will inevitably cross in to another state.
So, which laws should the AG abide by? The Federal Governments illegal law prohibiting marijuana? Or the Constitution?
If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say you're an anti-marijuana Conservative, so it'll be quite interesting to see how you respond. You're presented with quite the dilemma here.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-28-2014 at 08:25 PM..
One good thing that Holder did was make the determination to leave states alone to craft their own politics when it comes to Marijuana, free from interference from the Feds.....
How do you think his resignation might change the landscape in states like WA or CO? Will his replacement adopt the same passive strategy?
This was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw on CSPAN that Holder was leaving. The second thing that crossed my mind is that the mj tax revenue is flowing in, and legalization is popular among the Dem base and low info voters, so nothing will change.
A rumored replacement for Holder is US atty Jenny Durkan from WA. She's a long time loyal servant of the state who will not upset the apple cart.
It would be nice if we still followed the US Constitution, and let the US Congress enact and/or repeal the laws. We don't go that route any more.
Wether we disagree witht he Law or not the AG is bound to uphold them, as per written, not per his view on them.
Remember they take an Oath.
Nah ..... that was the old USA, in the Transformed USA - only the Laws that the Administration likes are "upheld", in fact - they make up Laws and change Laws out of thin air. Easier that way, we don't really need those 'stinking laws'.
This is actually a good thing because the most important issue facing the USA today is whether you can smoke a joint whenever you want, wherever you want ..... and the next big issue is that is has to be FREE! We finally have our priorities in order. I'm sure the new AG will understand how this works.
It would be nice if we still followed the US Constitution, and let the US Congress enact and/or repeal the laws. We don't go that route any more.
Yeah, it would be nice if we still followed the US Constitution, because if we did, the Fed Gov would have never made Marijuana illegal to begin with, seeing as it lacks the Constitutional authority to do so in the first place.
Perhaps you can enlighten me and provide me with the Article, Section, or Clause that gives them this power? It's possible I'm missing something here.
Yeah, it would be nice if we still followed the US Constitution, because if we did, the Fed Gov would have never made Marijuana illegal to begin with, seeing as it lacks the Constitutional authority to do so in the first place.
Perhaps you can enlighten me and provide me with the Article, Section, or Clause that gives them this power? It's possible I'm missing something here.
"Yeah, it would be nice if we still followed the US Constitution,"
Right! The meaning interpreted by Who?...............You?...........A bunch of kitchen table lawyers?............????
Since you don't accept the Supreme Court to interpret it, Who will you select to interpret it? As it stands we the people elect legislators to convene in Washington, Dc to make laws that follow the constitution and approve of the selected appointees to the Supreme Court by confirmation. You want to change that system? You don't like how our founding fathers set things up?
Well.......Leap Frog!........tell us all how you'd change things and who would interpret the Constitution for us. Those who do, have the balls of the nation in their hands so I'm dying to hear who you think is qualified to do the interpretation.
"Yeah, it would be nice if we still followed the US Constitution,"
Right! The meaning interpreted by Who?...............You?...........A bunch of kitchen table lawyers?............????
Since you don't accept the Supreme Court to interpret it, Who will you select to interpret it? As it stands we the people elect legislators to convene in Washington, Dc to make laws that follow the constitution and approve of the selected appointees to the Supreme Court by confirmation. You want to change that system? You don't like how our founding fathers set things up?
Well.......Leap Frog!........tell us all how you'd change things and who would interpret the Constitution for us. Those who do, have the balls of the nation in their hands so I'm dying to hear who you think is qualified to do the interpretation.
You're trying to expand this in to a far broader conversation than it really is.... That'd be going too far off topic, and would require a thread of it's own.
The Constitution is very clear about what powers the Fed Gov has, and making marijuana illegal isn't one of them. Why do you think that the Fed Gov had to pass a Constitutional amendment to enact prohibition and ban alcohol??? That's right, because the Constitution didn't give it that power otherwise. However, since then, they have discovered that they don't need to go to the trouble of passing an amendment, they can just misconstrue the Commerce Clause, with the aid of the Supreme Court, and give themselves virtually unlimited power.
The definition of Commerce in the eighteenth century is pretty much exactly as it is today, and btw, it's interstate commerce that's mentioned in the Constitution, not intrastate commerce, but that's not how it's being applied by an overreaching Federal Government and a complacent Supreme Court today. By their broad interpretation, the Fed Gov has virtually unlimited reach. They could essentially ban you from picking flowers if they wanted to, claiming that you'll have to go buy more flowers to plant, which would effect interstate commerce, and is therefore within their power. No one could believe that the current interpretation of Federal power under the Commerce Clause is an honest one. Nobody.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-28-2014 at 10:34 PM..
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.
