Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Shogun]

Isn't it cute how Shogun claims to know what I take for medication and how I take it? Nothing more than a red herring he uses to cover up his ignorant posts.

Rather then debate an issue he would rather pretend he knows my personal life and my medical conditions. But then losers usually resort to that kind of tactic in hopes then can confuse an issue with out providing any real substance to the conversation.

It wasn't a red herring, stupid. I was making fun of you and your stupid opinion.

Indeed, I've smacked you into the internet ether more times than you have send me a packing. Indeed, cry on Gary the orderly's shoulder and tell him what a mean, evil guy I am. I'm sure he cares.


I don't care about your medical condition. Discover what sarcasm is maybe. So far I've actually posted evidence from an actual Appeals court. What have you posted besides time wasting blather inbetween Matlock and your man-given sponge bath?

 

[AllieBaba]

Woody's a nutcase, and he's lobbied for years to get his mob-connected murderer of a father out of the klink. So while he may not be responsible for his genealogy, he certainly is responsible for his own behavior. And he's a champion for criminals, apparently.

I'd love pot to be legal, btw.

 

[Shogun]

How about we use Chris Robinson instead of Woody then.


He was married to one of my all-time favorite lust women in the world too so...

and I still think that woody is the man.

 

[Angel Heart]

Oh there's a LOT more than just woody. And the facts do back what I'm saying.


http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm

Marijuana
Marijuana Timeline In The United States
Copyright © PBS Online and WGBH/Frontline.



1600-1890s

Domestic production of hemp encouraged

American production of hemp was encouraged by the government in the 17th century for the production of rope, sails, and clothing. Marijuana is the dried flowers that come from Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica plants. Cannabis sativa is usually used to produce hemp. It has longer fibers (than Cannabis indica) that are preferred for hemp use.

In 1619 the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp. Hemp was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.

Domestic production flourished until after the Civil War, when imports and other domestic materials replaced hemp for many purposes. In the late nineteenth century, marijuana became a popular ingredient in many medicinal products and was sold openly in public pharmacies.

During the 19th century, hashish use became a fad in France and also, to some extent, in the U.S.



1906

Pure Food and Drug Act

Required labeling of any cannabis contained in over-the-counter remedies.



1900-20s

Mexican immigrants introduce recreational use of marijuana leaf

After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana.

The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching Marijuana Menace, and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.



1930s

Fear of marijuana

During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana.

This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by racially inferior or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.



1930

Creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN)

Harry J. Anslinger was the first Commissioner of the FBN and remained in that post until 1962.



1932

Uniform State Narcotic Act

Concern about the rising use of marijuana and research linking its use with crime and other social problems created pressure on the federal government to take action.

Rather than promoting federal legislation, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly encouraged state governments to accept responsibility for control of the problem by adopting the Uniform State Narcotic Act.



1936

Reefer Madness

Propaganda film Reefer Madness was produced by the French director, Louis Gasnier.

The Motion Pictures Association of America, composed of the major Hollywood studios, banned the showing of any narcotics in films.



1937

Marijuana Tax Act

After a lurid national propaganda campaign against the evil weed, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. The statute effectively criminalized marijuana, restricting possession of the drug to individuals who paid an excise tax for certain authorized medical and industrial uses.



1944

La Guardia Report finds marijuana less dangerous

New York Academy of Medicine issued an extensively researched report declaring that, contrary to earlier research and popular belief, use of marijuana did not induce violence, insanity or sex crimes, or lead to addiction or other drug use.



1940s

Hemp for Victory

During World War II, imports of hemp and other materials crucial for producing marine cordage, parachutes, and other military necessities became scarce.

In response the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched its Hemp for Victory program, encouraging farmers to plant hemp by giving out seeds and granting draft deferments to those who would stay home and grow hemp. By 1943 American farmers registered in the program harvested 375,000 acres of hemp.



1951-56

Stricter Sentencing Laws

Enactment of federal laws (Boggs Act, 1952; Narcotics Control Act, 1956) which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana.

A first-offense marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000.



1960s

Marijuana use popular in counterculture

A changing political and cultural climate was reflected in more lenient attitudes towards marijuana. Use of the drug became widespread in the white upper middle class.

Reports commissioned by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson found that marijuana use did not induce violence nor lead to use of heavier drugs. Policy towards marijuana began to involve considerations of treatment as well as criminal penalties.



1968

Creation of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs

This was a merger of FBN and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs of the Food and Drug Administration.



1970

Repeal of most mandatory minimum sentences

Congress repealed most of the mandatory penalties for drug-related offenses. It was widely acknowledged that the mandatory minimum sentences of the 1950s had done nothing to eliminate the drug culture that embraced marijuana use throughout the 60s, and that the minimum sentences imposed were often unduly harsh.

Marijuana differentiated from other drugs

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act categorized marijuana separately from other narcotics and eliminated mandatory federal sentences for possession of small amounts.

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) founded



1972

Shafer Commission

The bipartisan Shafer Commission, appointed by President Nixon at the direction of Congress, considered laws regarding marijuana and determined that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalized.

Nixon rejected the recommendation, but over the course of the 1970s, eleven states decriminalized marijuana and most others reduced their penalties.



1973

Creation of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)

Merger of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNND) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE).



1974

High Times founded



1976

Beginning of parents' movement against marijuana

A nationwide movement emerged of conservative parents' groups lobbying for stricter regulation of marijuana and the prevention of drug use by teenagers.

Some of these groups became quite powerful and, with the support of the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), were instrumental in affecting public attitudes which led to the 1980s War on Drugs.



1986

Anti-Drug Abuse Act - Mandatory Sentences

President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, instituting mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes.

In conjunction with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the new law raised federal penalties for marijuana possession and dealing, basing the penalties on the amount of the drug involved. Possession of 100 marijuana plants received the same penalty as possession of 100 grams of heroin.

A later amendment to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act established a three strikes and you're out policy, requiring life sentences for repeat drug offenders, and providing for the death penalty for drug kingpins.



1989

Bush's War on Drugs

President George Bush declares a new War on Drugs in a nationally televised speech.



1996

Medical Use Legalized in California

California voters passed Proposition 215 allowing for the sale and medical use of marijuana for patients with AIDS, cancer, and other serious and painful diseases. This law stands in tension with federal laws prohibiting possession of marijuana.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Books


Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts:
A Review Of The Scientific Evidence
You might want to read this if you are interested in marijuana, or want to discuss marijuana with your kids, but do not have enough facts to begin.

This is not propaganda put out by anti-drug crusaders, it is a scientific study of the facts. If you need to talk to your children about marijuana, and have them respect your opinion, get the facts, not the hype.

Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts




Reefer Madness:
The History of Marijuana in America
Reefer Madness is the authors reply to the movie of the same name. But this is an honest version of the social history of marijuana use in America.

Beginning with the hemp farming of George Washington, author traces the fascinating story of our nation's love-hate relationship with the resilient weed we know as marijuana.

Reefer Madness




The Emperor Wears No Clothes:
The Authoritative Historical Record of Cannabis
and the Conspiracy Against Marijuana
Probably the best book around about the history, uses, and war on this plant. Over 300 pages of text, photos, illustrations and charts.

This book has been an eye opener to me and everyone else I know that has read it. You would be hard pressed to find a more complete source for information relating to the suppression of the hemp industry in the United States.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marijuana Related
Books About Marijuana
More Marijuana Articles
Various Marijuana Links

 

[Angel Heart]

I'd love pot to be legal, btw.

Then why not join the fight to make it happen? Have you signed any petitions for it? Have you written your elected leaders in regards to it?

 

[Angel Heart]

Woody's a nutcase, and he's lobbied for years to get his mob-connected murderer of a father out of the klink. So while he may not be responsible for his genealogy, he certainly is responsible for his own behavior. And he's a champion for criminals, apparently.

I'd love pot to be legal, btw.

Any son would lobby for that. It's his father after all.

As far as the drug laws go, why are prisons half full of drug related offences? Wouldn't those spaces be better used to keep sex offenders off the street for good. How about the many times we've seen early releases due to lack of beds?

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not arguing with you, stoner.

 

[Foxfyre]

rational sense to whome? I don't recall that criteria working out to well in the 60s

Well this is importing from another thread, but rational sense in regard to practicality. There is no rational sense in your hiring a white actor over a black actor to be a shopkeeper in a commercial just because you don't like black people. It would make rational sense to refuse to hire a black actor over a white actor to play the part of a father of a white family in a commercial.

It would be absurd to hire a heterosexual to be a counselor for a gay teen support group or to hire an openly gay guy to be a role model for heterosexual boys.. Male or female doesn't make any difference when you're hiring a bookkeeper but does make a difference if you're hiring a washroom attendant.

It makes no rational sense to refuse medical marijuana to patients who derive comfort from having it whether or not it actually does them any good. It does make rational sense to refuse to allow marijuana or any other controlled substance in the work place.

Does that explain my point sufficiently rationally?

 

[Shogun]

Well this is importing from another thread, but rational sense in regard to practicality. There is no rational sense in your hiring a white actor over a black actor to be a shopkeeper in a commercial just because you don't like black people. It would make rational sense to refuse to hire a black actor over a white actor to play the part of a father of a white family in a commercial.


yea, THIS SIDE of the 60s. It made rational sense to put whites in black face back then. It made sense to give David Caradine the starring role in Kung Fu because Bruce looked "Too Chinese". Indeed, there are probably as many opinions on what is rational as there are people holding those opinions. All of which have a way of rationalizing their own opinons on application of "rational sense"


It would be absurd to hire a heterosexual to be a counselor for a gay teen support group or to hire an openly gay guy to be a role model for heterosexual boys.. Male or female doesn't make any difference when you're hiring a bookkeeper but does make a difference if you're hiring a washroom attendant.

Really? Is it absurd to hire strait actors to play gay roles? Why can't openly gay men be role models for strait boys? I've seen MALE volleyball coaches and FEMALE sports newscasters. Again, who gets to decide what is absurd or not?


It makes no rational sense to refuse medical marijuana to patients who derive comfort from having it whether or not it actually does them any good. It does make rational sense to refuse to allow marijuana or any other controlled substance in the work place.

How does smoking in a private, personal environment bringing it into the workforce any more than drinking on a friday night brings alcohol into the jobsite? Indeed, my very point about the nature of THC tests is valid. What does smoking a joint over Labor Day weekend have to do with work 30 days later? Can an employer also decide to nix everyone who is on the birth control pill? Lithium? Oxycontin? Nitroglycerin? Should I be allowed to ask about your psychiatric history too? Your gyno exam history? All dr/ patient privilage.

Dont get me wrong, I am no fan of drugs in the workplace.. and I work in HR by the way. Im just not sure if the criteria being tested for really indicates anything about job performance or a liability to the company. If someone gets busted rolling a fatty in the restroom at work.. sure, pounce on that. But, a prescribed medication where a test does not indicate actual frequency of use OR time frame less than a thirty day spread?

Does that explain my point sufficiently rationally?

I appriciate that you took the time to clarify, thank you.. But, i offer you rebuttal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well this is importing from another thread, but rational sense in regard to practicality. There is no rational sense in your hiring a white actor over a black actor to be a shopkeeper in a commercial just because you don't like black people. It would make rational sense to refuse to hire a black actor over a white actor to play the part of a father of a white family in a commercial.


yea, THIS SIDE of the 60s. It made rational sense to put whites in black face back then. It made sense to give David Caradine the starring role in Kung Fu because Bruce looked "Too Chinese". Indeed, there are probably as many opinions on what is rational as there are people holding those opinions. All of which have a way of rationalizing their own opinons on application of "rational sense".

Didn't make rational sense to me back then. Did it make rational sense to you? I wasn't talking about 'back then', however. I am talking about rational common sense now.

It would be absurd to hire a heterosexual to be a counselor for a gay teen support group or to hire an openly gay guy to be a role model for heterosexual boys.. Male or female doesn't make any difference when you're hiring a bookkeeper but does make a difference if you're hiring a washroom attendant.

Really? Is it absurd to hire strait actors to play gay roles? Why can't openly gay men be role models for strait boys? I've seen MALE volleyball coaches and FEMALE sports newscasters. Again, who gets to decide what is absurd or not?

I wasn't referring to actor roles in this context. I was referring to real life. Let's keep some focus please.

It makes no rational sense to refuse medical marijuana to patients who derive comfort from having it whether or not it actually does them any good. It does make rational sense to refuse to allow marijuana or any other controlled substance in the work place.

How does smoking in a private, personal environment bringing it into the workforce any more than drinking on a friday night brings alcohol into the jobsite? Indeed, my very point about the nature of THC tests is valid. What does smoking a joint over Labor Day weekend have to do with work 30 days later? Can an employer also decide to nix everyone who is on the birth control pill? Lithium? Oxycontin? Nitroglycerin? Should I be allowed to ask about your psychiatric history too? Your gyno exam history? All dr/ patient privilage.

Dont get me wrong, I am no fan of drugs in the workplace.. and I work in HR by the way. Im just not sure if the criteria being tested for really indicates anything about job performance or a liability to the company. If someone gets busted rolling a fatty in the restroom at work.. sure, pounce on that. But, a prescribed medication where a test does not indicate actual frequency of use OR time frame less than a thirty day spread?

But the employer has no way to know if the employee is smoking or snorting or shooting up or imbibing on or off the job so if they flunk a drug test, that should be it. If you work in HR (as I have also) then you know that many employers require a mandatory drug test following every on the job accident. And many employers also require random drug tests to enforce no 'controlled substances' policies. Anybody who goes to work for these companies knows the risks, and if they are stupid enough to engage in controlled substances anywhere that will show up on a drug test later, they are probably too dumb to work there anyway.

Does that explain my point sufficiently rationally?[/B]

I appriciate that you took the time to clarify, thank you.. But, i offer you rebuttal.

[/QUOTE]

Yup, but lets focus on what is actually being said here, and concentrate on work policies as that seems to be the intention of the thread.

 

[AllieBaba]

And in certain jobs you are required to tell your supervisors if you're taking any prescription drug that can affect your ability to fuction in that job.

That means codeine cough syrup, decongestants, Ty3 or painkillers, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

And in certain jobs you are required to tell your supervisors if you're taking any prescription drug that can affect your ability to fuction in that job.

That means codeine cough syrup, decongestants, Ty3 or painkillers, etc.

Right because their lives or those of their coworkers can depend on them not having impaired judgment or unusually slow reflexes. Shogun mentioned birth control pills in his above 'rebuttal' too. I think we can safely eliminate most antibiotics, Alipurinal, birth control pills, or other prescription medications that do NOT impair judgment or slow reflexes from this discussion and agree that we are only talking about those substances that do or can.

 

[Gunny]

State law can not EVER supercede Federal Law, thats the way it works. Drugs fall under FEDERAL laws. Thus the State can NOT override the Federal Government. I suggest the two of you reread the Constitution. And Jillian your a Lawyer, I can not help but notice once again your total lack of knowledge on the Constitution is appalling.

I don't need to reread the Constitution. The Constitution does not say Federal law supercedes state law. The US Civil War decided THAT, and Lincoln violated the Constitution at every turn in conducting the war.

Basically, the issue was decided by force of arms. That may mean the US won, but it does not make the US right.

Nor does it make the Fed government right sticking its nose into the states' business. The Constitution also clearly states that any powers not given to the Fed government specifically fall to the states.

Marijuana laws are stupid, archaic, and based on superstitious BS. As long as alcohol is legal, then pot should be as well because I damned sure don't see much difference between the two except when I used to see those red lights in the rearview I could get straight REAL fast if I was just high. When you're drunk, youre drunk.

Our current Marijuana laws are about as realistic and effective as Prohibition was.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't need to reread the Constitution. The Constitution does not say Federal law supercedes state law. The US Civil War decided THAT, and Lincoln violated the Constitution at every turn in conducting the war.

Basically, the issue was decided by force of arms. That may mean the US won, but it does not make the US right.

Nor does it make the Fed government right sticking its nose into the states' business. The Constitution also clearly states that any powers not given to the Fed government specifically fall to the states.

Marijuana laws are stupid, archaic, and based on superstitious BS. As long as alcohol is legal, then pot should be as well because I damned sure don't see much difference between the two except when I used to see those red lights in the rearview I could get straight REAL fast if I was just high. When you're drunk, youre drunk.

Our current Marijuana laws are about as realistic and effective as Prohibition was.

Simply wrong...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentix



I strongly advice you to learn the document that rules this country, that establishes the Federal system and establishes that FEDERAL Authority is superior to State or Individual Authority.

The Civil War established that a State can not leave the Union without the express permission of the Federal Government through an act of Congress. The 14th Amendment established that the Bill of Rights applies to individual citizens over and above any State Law or Authority.

 

[jillian]

Simply wrong...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html




http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentix



I strongly advice you to learn the document that rules this country, that establishes the Federal system and establishes that FEDERAL Authority is superior to State or Individual Authority.

The Civil War established that a State can not leave the Union without the express permission of the Federal Government through an act of Congress. The 14th Amendment established that the Bill of Rights applies to individual citizens over and above any State Law or Authority.

And I'd advise *you* to learn that that we live in a nation made up of two types of law, statutory and common law. Every statute is construed based upon the interpretation given it by common law. That's when the Courts' apply the law and decide what its proper application is. There is only one state in the country which doesn't operate under an English Common Law system, and that's Louisiana which is a Code State -- like the French.

And that's the problem with the lie that is "strict constructionism". It doesn't exist.

Marbury rules!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I'd advise *you* to learn that the fact that we live in a nation made up of two types of law, statutory and common law. Every statute is construed based upon the interpretation given it by common law. That's when the Courts' apply the law and decide what its proper application is.

And that's the problem with the lie that is "strict constructionism". It doesn't exist.

Marbury rules!

The Federal Government is supreme law, read the damn Constitution, I linked the direct quote from the document that STATES it as well as all the other parts that also make it clear.

There is no interpretation necassary, the Document STATES in plain english the Federal Law is Supreme no matter what some State may have in its Constitution or law books.

Here let me cite it for you again...

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.

No intrepretation needed. Those sentences STATE a simple straight forward FACT.

Perhaps English is not the Native tongue?

 

[jillian]

The Federal Government is supreme law, read the damn Constitution, I linked the direct quote from the document that STATES it as well as all the other parts that also make it clear.

There is no interpretation necassary, the Document STATES in plain english the Federal Law is Supreme no matter what some State may have in its Constitution or law books.

Here let me cite it for you again...



No intrepretation needed. Those sentences STATE a simple straight forward FACT.

Perhaps English is not the Native tongue?

Dude, I'm not getting into these discussions with you. You're ignorant, rude and don't know how to discuss anything.

If the Constitution wasn't supposed to be construed by the Courts, we wouldn't need judges.

Go back and read Marbury v Madison.... judicial review isn't part of the Constitution either.

I love when people like you view this simplistically. If it were the case, then you'd be far wiser than all the justices who went before you. And somehow, I don't need to know you to know that isn't the case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dude, I'm not getting into these discussions with you. You're ignorant, rude and don't know how to discuss anything.

If the Constitution wasn't supposed to be construed by the Courts, we wouldn't need judges.

Go back and read Marbury v Madison.... judicial review isn't part of the Constitution either.

I love when people like you view this simplistically. If it were the case, then you'd be far wiser than all the justices who went before you. And somehow, I don't need to know you to know that isn't the case.

I still find it amazing you have no concept of what the Constitution says or implies and yet you have a Law license.

HERE let me quote again for you...

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.

Go ahead parse that, it is not UP to interpretation. You won't find a single court in the land that can usurp the rightful power of the Federal Government when it acts in accordance with the Constitution.

That you think you can is hillarious as hell.

 

[jillian]

I still find it amazing you have no concept of what the Constitution says or implies and yet you have a Law license.

HERE let me quote again for you...



Go ahead parse that, it is not UP to interpretation. You won't find a single court in the land that can usurp the rightful power of the Federal Government when it acts in accordance with the Constitution.

That you think you can is hillarious as hell.

And I'm telling you that you're too stupid to understand that the story doesn't end there....

But then again, you're also someone who says he was military and thinks we're "winning" in Iraq.... so I really shouldn't be troubled by anything you say.

Cheers...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I'm telling you that you're too stupid to understand that the story doesn't end there....

But then again, you're also someone who says he was military and thinks we're "winning" in Iraq.... so I really shouldn't be troubled by anything you say.

Cheers...

The Story DOES end there. So long as the Federal Government is acting in accordance with the Constitution the laws they create are SUPREME. No State can over rule them or ignore them. GunnyL and now you are claiming States can ignore the fed and that the fed is not supreme law of the land. Your both simply totally wrong.