Republicans pass a bill to kill our freedoms

Because drugs are bad when not dispensed by the proper authorities, as with all things in modern America only the well to do, through their physician, are allowed to escape reality for brief moments.

Drugs are bad? Is that really the best you can do? If who dispenses them actually makes a difference how do people abuse prescription drugs?

"Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust

Even for you this is a stupid quote.
 
Because idiots like you keep voting for the same people.

you know it's the House with its tea loons, right?

it won't get through the Senate.

i found the wording interesting... it's illegal to "plan or discuss" things in this country that you intend to do in another country?

it seems to deal with more than drugs...

Can we bet on that? I am feeling seriously lucky on this particular subject, this could be your chance to make a fool out of me. My prediction is that, not only will it pass both the House and Senate with wide bipartisan support, Obama will actually sign it and hold a big press conference about how he is making Americans safer by being able to go after terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Republicans by definition regard States' right sacro sanct . Well once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away they did. Apparently unlike the elephant, which never forgets, this bunch of coconuts has forgotten that. But then Republicans have been mucking around in everyone's rights, including States', for such a long time I really don't find this latest invasion the least bit surprising.

Wrong.
 
According to the OP's source, the acts would have to be carried out in the US. Since this wedding is in Amsterdam, there would be no possibility of prosecution.

No, they would not have to be carried out in the U.S. They would have to be illegal IF carried out in the U.S. Thus, buying some marijuana for the bride and groom, which is legal in Holland, would be illegal if they did it in the U.S., and so they can be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit an act in a foreign country that would be illegal in the U.S.

It's already illegal to conspire to commit an illegal act on U.S. territory; no new legislation would be required for that.

Bingo.
 
This is possible because both parties are the SAME party.

Anybody who thinks that the Dems are soft on drugs laws isn't paying attention.

Clinton's DoJ put more people in prison for marijuana crimes that Bush II's did.
"You must spread some Reputation around before you give it to editec again."

It is just hilarious the way so many fail to appreciate what an excellent Republican (if Bush is any measure of excellent Republican) Obama has been to date. The bailouts, the War on Drugs, stimulus spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, government sponsored healthcare, his 2nd Amendment position, deficit spending, the expansion of the regulatory state, upholding abuses of the interstate commerce clause, ... I have serious difficulties seeing what the Republicans are complaining about ... unless it's that they believe that McCain would have done more to advance their patently statist agenda.

McCain would have done a couple of things a little differently. For one thing, he probably would have completely eliminated extraordinary rendition. His opposition to torture is based on personal experience, not political expediency.
 
Because idiots like you keep voting for the same people.

you know it's the House with its tea loons, right?

it won't get through the Senate.

i found the wording interesting... it's illegal to "plan or discuss" things in this country that you intend to do in another country?

it seems to deal with more than drugs...

Can we bet on that? I am feeling seriously lucky on this particular subject, this could be your chance to make a fool out of me. My prediction is that, not only will it pass both the House and Senate with wide bipartisan support, Obama will actually sign it and hold a big press conference about how he is making Americans safer by being able to go after terrorists.

I hope you are wrong and fear you are right....................:clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
What was the vote in committee? If you can not answer that. you are full of shit and speculation.

Looks like it was 20-7 in subcommittee two days ago.

According to the OP's source, the acts would have to be carried out in the US.

The language in the bill is:

`(b) Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.'.​

link???

Nevermind...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.313:#

The key phrase in the text of the actual bill is 'within the United States'.

If someone is within the US, and that person 'conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States'... in other words, it can only be enforce if you were WITHIN THE US when conspiring. If you were in, say, Amsterdam when you 'conspired', the proposal does not apply.

A lot of worry about nothing.
 
Last edited:
The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.
Whatever.

The real issue/question is when is the GOP going to stop wasting time with the above nonsense and address jobs and the economy.
 
According to the OP's source, the acts would have to be carried out in the US. Since this wedding is in Amsterdam, there would be no possibility of prosecution.

No, they would not have to be carried out in the U.S. They would have to be illegal IF carried out in the U.S. Thus, buying some marijuana for the bride and groom, which is legal in Holland, would be illegal if they did it in the U.S., and so they can be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit an act in a foreign country that would be illegal in the U.S.

It's already illegal to conspire to commit an illegal act on U.S. territory; no new legislation would be required for that.

re-read this text...

Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.'

My initial interpretation was based on the OP article. I have re-read the actual text, and while the acts themselves do not have to happen in the US, it clearly states that the conspiring must be while you are 'within the United States'. If the conspiring takes place outside the US (as in the Amsterdam wedding example), and so do the acts, the proposal doesn't affect the situation.
 
First of all the "bill" made it out of the judiciary committee. Maybe ignorant leftie drug addicts think it means the bill has become law and they will be busted in Amsterdam but it don't. Let's put our cards on the table shall we? If the bridal party wants to take the risk and smuggle marijuana into the US as a "gift" to the bride they are more stupid than pot heads usually are. Even mind numbed leftie radicals must know what the law intends. It means that Americans would be subject to US laws if they conspired with drug cartels to smuggle drugs into the US. Would it be good news to left wingers if the law stipulated certain drugs or would mind numbed anti-Americans be offended if the bridal party was busted in Amsterdam with a pound of heroin?
 
I don't see how a law like this can pass Constitutional muster. Our government does not have the right to regulate my activities on foreign soil. Our laws end at our borders.
 
First of all the "bill" made it out of the judiciary committee. Maybe ignorant leftie drug addicts think it means the bill has become law and they will be busted in Amsterdam but it don't. Let's put our cards on the table shall we? If the bridal party wants to take the risk and smuggle marijuana into the US as a "gift" to the bride they are more stupid than pot heads usually are. Even mind numbed leftie radicals must know what the law intends. It means that Americans would be subject to US laws if they conspired with drug cartels to smuggle drugs into the US. Would it be good news to left wingers if the law stipulated certain drugs or would mind numbed anti-Americans be offended if the bridal party was busted in Amsterdam with a pound of heroin?

I think you misread that part...
"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution,"
He's saying the wedding would be in Amsterdam, and the pot would be for the bridal party (he does not specify where, but one can reasonably assume from the context that this would also be in Amsterdam, where pot is legal). They are not talking about smuggling pot into the US.

In any case, he's wrong anyway.
 
I don't see how a law like this can pass Constitutional muster. Our government does not have the right to regulate my activities on foreign soil. Our laws end at our borders.

It's not regulating acts on foreign soil. It's trying to regulate the act of conspiracy if it occurs 'within the US', regardless of where the acts being conspired would occur.

Dumb idea, will never pass.
 
I don't see how a law like this can pass Constitutional muster. Our government does not have the right to regulate my activities on foreign soil. Our laws end at our borders.

No worries, under the new House rules, legislation introduced in the House needs to be accompanied by a Constitutional authority statement identifying where in the Constitution it finds its authorization. In this case:

By Mr. SMITH of Texas:
H.R. 313.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The authority to enact this bill is derived from, but may
not be limited to, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
United States Constitution.

For those keeping score at home, that's the bit about Congressional power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Thank goodness that rule is in place! :lol:
 
you know it's the House with its tea loons, right?

it won't get through the Senate.

i found the wording interesting... it's illegal to "plan or discuss" things in this country that you intend to do in another country?

it seems to deal with more than drugs...

Can we bet on that? I am feeling seriously lucky on this particular subject, this could be your chance to make a fool out of me. My prediction is that, not only will it pass both the House and Senate with wide bipartisan support, Obama will actually sign it and hold a big press conference about how he is making Americans safer by being able to go after terrorists.

I hope you are wrong and fear you are right....................:clap2::clap2::clap2:

I hope I am wrong too.
 
First of all the "bill" made it out of the judiciary committee. Maybe ignorant leftie drug addicts think it means the bill has become law and they will be busted in Amsterdam but it don't. Let's put our cards on the table shall we? If the bridal party wants to take the risk and smuggle marijuana into the US as a "gift" to the bride they are more stupid than pot heads usually are. Even mind numbed leftie radicals must know what the law intends. It means that Americans would be subject to US laws if they conspired with drug cartels to smuggle drugs into the US. Would it be good news to left wingers if the law stipulated certain drugs or would mind numbed anti-Americans be offended if the bridal party was busted in Amsterdam with a pound of heroin?

I think you misread that part...
"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution,"
He's saying the wedding would be in Amsterdam, and the pot would be for the bridal party (he does not specify where, but one can reasonably assume from the context that this would also be in Amsterdam, where pot is legal). They are not talking about smuggling pot into the US.

In any case, he's wrong anyway.

If they are in the US when they plan the wedding he is right, even if the marijuana never makes it to the US.
 
I don't see how a law like this can pass Constitutional muster. Our government does not have the right to regulate my activities on foreign soil. Our laws end at our borders.

It's not regulating acts on foreign soil. It's trying to regulate the act of conspiracy if it occurs 'within the US', regardless of where the acts being conspired would occur.

Dumb idea, will never pass.

You should pay more attention to federal laws. Not only will it pass, it will get signed, and, when challenged, it will hold up in court.
 
I don't see how a law like this can pass Constitutional muster. Our government does not have the right to regulate my activities on foreign soil. Our laws end at our borders.

No worries, under the new House rules, legislation introduced in the House needs to be accompanied by a Constitutional authority statement identifying where in the Constitution it finds its authorization. In this case:

By Mr. SMITH of Texas:
H.R. 313.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The authority to enact this bill is derived from, but may
not be limited to, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
United States Constitution.
For those keeping score at home, that's the bit about Congressional power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Thank goodness that rule is in place! :lol:

Blame the progressives and the courts for that one.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top