Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not sure who took it to the USSC, but this argument has been around for a long time. State's rights went away a looooooong time ago. Roe v Wade is about when it really started being eroded, but it began way before then.Mr. P said:I hear the USSC ruled today that a state may not allow medical marijuana use.
They want Congress to pass a law, I guess. No states rights, huh? I'd like to know who took this issue to the court to start with..anyone know?
Today's decision came in response to an appeal from the U.S. Department of Justice to a Sept. 8, 2000 injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco banning the government from investigating or prosecuting physicians who recommending marijuana as a medical treatment, and allowing medical marijuana clubs to continue serving patients who could prove marijuana was, to them, a "medical necessity."
freeandfun1 said:Not sure who took it to the USSC, but this argument has been around for a long time. State's rights went away a looooooong time ago. Roe v Wade is about when it really started being eroded, but it began way before then.
True, but Roe v Wade is probably the biggest and one of the earliest examples of state's rights being taken away in terms of legislation.no1tovote4 said:They began eroding just after the Civil War, that is when Amendment 14 got passed. They eroded further when the State's representation in the Federal Government was taken by Amendment 17.
I guess it didn't change a thing, really..It looks like some group wasw involved.Today's Supreme Court's ruling neither addresses nor changes existing state laws dealing with marijuana. It does mean however, that marijuana users and distributors cannot use medical necessity as a defense against prosecution at the federal level.
True...so then the only answer is for congress to pass a law allowing it. I guess.archangel said:You may not like it,however it has always been this way since inception....
Federal has jurisdiction over State...State has jurisdiction over County...and County has jurisdiction over City...not perfect but a needed jurisdiction to keep the wheels greased and running!
Mr. P said:True...so then the only answer is for congress to pass a law allowing it. I guess.
Mr. P said:I hear the USSC ruled today that a state may not allow medical marijuana use.
They want Congress to pass a law, I guess. No states rights, huh? I'd like to know who took this issue to the court to start with..anyone know?
Well, since this case appears to have been brought in Sept 2000 before Bush every took officeBullypulpit said:Probably the DOJ. Funny how the Administration talks about state's rights, until those rights run counter to the administration's ideological agenda.
Yurt said:So what does the 10th amendment mean?
Bullypulpit said:<blockquote>Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
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.</blockquote>
Apparently, it's no longer worth the match it would take to burn it.
Agreed and I was about to point out the same thing. On the news, they keep saying the "Bush Administration" has won a battle over this, yet they forget to mention it was the CLINTON administration that brought the case to begin with. Convenient memory loss I guess. Maybe those in the media have been smoke'n too much weed.... they seem to suffer from short-term memory loss quite a bit.Mr. P said:Well, since this case appears to have been brought in Sept 2000 before Bush every took office
we sure can't pin it on him, however if this Congress doesn't move on it under HIS administration
he should take some heat for it...IMO.
And there ya go.Bullypulpit said:<blockquote>Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
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.</blockquote>
Apparently, it's no longer worth the match it would take to burn it.
Damn, can't rep ya!Bullypulpit said:<blockquote>Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
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.</blockquote>
Apparently, it's no longer worth the match it would take to burn it.
