Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MLD Woody

States Rights?

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Just kidding

No weed

No kidding needed, MLD.

The 'States Rights' folks are all-to-ready to jump on Federal Government intervention if the particular policy doesn't align with their beliefs.

Of course, Blue State Governers continue to make noise about the Federal Government usurping their State soverngty.

We are all hypocrites.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by

states.  But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"

It's simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama just let it go, Sessions is giving authority to federal prosecutors to go ahead and ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS.  I hope they do it in CA and CO.  It will really piss off their Governor's.  Fuk em.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by

states.  But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"

It's simple.

If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should weed be legal?

No

Why?

Because it's an illegal drug

 

 

 

 

......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I really believe you should leave [legalization] up to the states; it should be a state by state situation..."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law? 

not if it directly contradicts clear cut Constitutional Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

not if it directly contradicts clear cut Constitutional Rights.

What "clear cut onstitutional right(s)" does the potential federal decriminalization of marijuana violate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

not if it directly contradicts clear cut Constitutional Rights.

Marijuana isn’t mentioned in the constitution. So if the majority of citizens in a state want it legal, it is fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is illegal federally, it cannot be legal on a state basis, as I understand it.

Here is a great explanation - I didn't write it...

"Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Marijuana isn’t mentioned in the constitution. So if the majority of citizens in a state want it legal, it is fine?

It was in the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all non-weed smoking white men are created equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I see this has devolved from states rights into a 'hey man,  I want to get high' thread.

The biggest dangers involved with oxy or heroin are impure sources, the drugs being laced with even more powerful or dangerous substances.

So for the safety of those who like the buzz why not just legalized it all and control it, making sure the pills you buy on the street are safe and dose controlled?

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

So I see this has devolved from states rights into a 'hey man,  I want to get high' thread.

The biggest dangers involved with oxy or heroin are impure sources, the drugs being laced with even more powerful or dangerous substances.

So for the safety of those who like the buzz why not just legalized it all and control it, making sure the pills you buy on the street are safe and dose controlled?

WSS

Biggest danger to the individual, yes.  The biggest danger with the opioid epidemic is decreased human productivity and crime.

The States' rights vs strong central government discussion it worthwhile but gets oversimplified too often to make a point.  For instance this Country couldn't allow a State to legalize burglary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

Biggest danger to the individual, yes.  The biggest danger with the opioid epidemic is decreased human productivity and crime.

The States' rights vs strong central government discussion it worthwhile but gets oversimplified too often to make a point.  For instance this Country couldn't allow a State to legalize burglary.

Why would crime be a problem if it were freely distributed at a low cost? And the doses were controlled and safe? Heck the pillbillies could just stay home all day, never venture out into the public.

Human productivity, you're kidding about that one right?

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait until the Feds shut down all the businesses in Colorado, and stop any from opening in CA, :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Why would crime be a problem if it were freely distributed at a low cost? And the doses were controlled and safe? Heck the pillbillies could just stay home all day, never venture out into the public.

Human productivity, you're kidding about that one right?

WSS

You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.

Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.

 that's exactly true. Welcome to Utopia.

Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.

 unfortunately the day has passed when we can all live like kings while doing jobs that a monkey can do. We don't need 200000 men to run a software firm. The days of earning an upper middle-class income by loading and unloading semi trucks is in the rear view. Sure we could open up the borders and let unskilled laborers flood in like rats to pick fruit but don't kid yourself bacon, their children and grandchildren won't do it.

WSS

 

 go back to Robert Reich and his participation wage thread I put up. What will those people have to do with their lives than sit around and smoke weed?

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no use for christie. opportunistic fraud loudmouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BaconHound said:

You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.

Wasted people, bad things.

High people, art and Sheet. Or just nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:30 PM, LogicIsForSquares said:

If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law? 

That is a very slippery slope, my friend.

We have a Republic, not a Democracy.  Protecting 'minority' views, persuasions, etc. if what America is all about.

I like to see the Federal Drug Laws amended.  I do not want to see 'Majority Rule' used as a broad brush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:50 AM, MLD Woody said:

If something is legal on a federal level, can a state make it illegal? 

I am far from - even - being an armchair Attorney, never mind a Constitutional one.

I believe, though, Federal Law trumps States Laws.

Gip can, certainly, answer this question with much more velocity than can I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]

The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.

Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×