State Pot Laws Usurping the Fed Means Abortion Is Next...

Discussion in 'Legal Philosophy' started by RoshawnMarkwees, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    10,649
    Thanks Received:
    1,735
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +6,864
    I'm pro-choice, but I think that states should be making the decision on abortion. If folks honestly believe that abortion is killing babies then fucking shit let them not see it outside their windows. Drive to fucking California for your abortion, you know it'll always be legal there.
     
  2. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    30,854
    Thanks Received:
    7,162
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +20,042
    with what is currently happening it is much easier for a state to ignore

    the abortion laws and write their own
     
  3. BuckToothMoron
    Offline

    BuckToothMoron Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    6,501
    Thanks Received:
    1,164
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,493
    Yes, you said pothead lefties. What’s the matter, smoke so much weed you can’t remember your own post?
     
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,716
    Thanks Received:
    2,733
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,141
    RoshawnMarkwees
    I thought it was the ACA mandate, that made "right to health care the law of the land"
    which spelled the end of "prochoice" -- by proving liberals DO BELIEVE the govt could have a greater "compelling interest" that overrides individual right to free choice in health care decisions.
     
  5. ScienceRocks
    Offline

    ScienceRocks Democrat all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    59,458
    Thanks Received:
    6,694
    Trophy Points:
    1,900
    Location:
    The Good insane United states of America
    Ratings:
    +26,430
    You're either pro states rights or you're not.

    The war on drugs is one of the most anti-constutional things are federal government has ever done.

    You aint a liberterian if you support it.

    Just fuck off and die with you dumb anti-government arguements otherwise if you do support this shit.
     
  6. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    31,962
    Thanks Received:
    4,379
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,662
    I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

    Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,716
    Thanks Received:
    2,733
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,141
    Dear ScienceRocks
    Do you make the distinction between
    Decriminalization of drugs and
    Legalization of them?

    Many people are against abortion but don't believe it should be banned or criminalized because this creates worse problems.
    Many people opposed drug use or abuse, but also don't believe in CRIMINALIZING it though they don't believe in LEGALIZING IT either,
    because BOTH of these create worse problems and costs to taxpayers.

    Similarly with prostitution.

    Are you okay with people who believe in DEcriminalization, but don't believe in legalization
    but believe there still needs to be some kind of deterrent or preventative measures in place to prevent rampant abuses?
     
  8. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    10,649
    Thanks Received:
    1,735
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +6,864
    I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

    The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

    The modern left are just as "totalitarian" as the church was back in the 50s and 60s, and worse honestly because they're forcing their moral opinions upon the entire nation through Fed usurpation of individual freedoms and decisions at the state level. EPA and BLM laws intended to force compliance with the Federal opinion on global warming are an example of usurped individual rights; and now, with Trump in office, we see all of that falling by the wayside, and we see states [and their people] making those decisions for their coastline on their own. Federal business regulations is another area where we see Trump cleaning things up and returning the decision back to the individual states/muni's.

    And again, with the pot thing, it was criminalized by the Fed, not the states, the Fed's usurped /individual/ rights in order to control immigration without the asshole politicians risking reelection by admitting that they were being racist and discriminatory against Mexican immigrants. Pot is a perfect example of taking away individual rights, a perfect example of why the government doesn't always know best, and a perfect example of how 'political corruption' has "slipped" into our system. The feds have taken too much power, not from states, but from we the people, us individuals who should have the /right/ to decide what /we/ believe in, rather than have fed opinions and morals shoved down our throats.

    EDIT I should clarify that last sentence, it's not that the right didn't usurp individual rights via fed control, but they did it less and were a hell of a lot less blatant about it because most of their base voters are big on individualism, vs the left is blatant and doesn't try to hide it because they're very "group/collective" orientated.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  9. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    31,962
    Thanks Received:
    4,379
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,662
    There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

    Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

    The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

    And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

    There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

    The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.
     
  10. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    10,649
    Thanks Received:
    1,735
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +6,864
    I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

    As for the pot thing, Alaska would disagree. In hmmm 1975 I believe it was Alaska actually put pot in it's state constitution has a legally protected right, it fell under privacy, an individual right. The Feds ignored, and in fact required, Alaska to change it's state constitution on the matter.

    Lets step back, what is the justification for Fed discrimination of Mexican's via the drug classification of pot? Today they argue it's a "general welfare" clause, that pot is a gateway drug, that it's addictive, that it's harmful. Yet there is almost no science to back up these assertions. IF the Fed is going to take away an individual's choice to smoke pot as an alternative to pain medication, you'd think there would be a legitimate, provable reason, but there's not. The argument itself is nothing more than a pissing match between Fed and state, always has been, and these days it's even more so. If we applied such flimsy arguments to other things, for example, booze or cigarettes, it would be considered /wrong/ by most American's, right? If we apply such arguments to sodomy, it is considered /wrong/ by most Americans. If we apply it to SSM, most American's would consider it /wrong/.

    Its all the same concept really, individual freedom of choice. The only reason SSM, sodomy, cigarettes, and booze are legal today is basically because of money via lobby groups. Individual pot growers and smokers just don't have the money to lobby as hard. The only reason we still have the 2nd protected is because of the NRA's lobbying, the only reason we have SSM and perhaps even sodomy protection is because of lobbying, the only reason cigarettes and booze are protected is because of lobbying. It's kind of sick if you actually think about it, but that, in a nut shell, is part the slippery slope argument as well. Anywhere the Feds get involved it almost inherently takes power from the people and puts it in the Feds hands, and once in the Feds hands, it is exceptionally difficult, aka expensive, to get it back (see pot or even prohibition) /even/ when the majority of the people /want/ that power back. How many folks are addicted to "prescription" drugs today? You think it really matters to the gov that doctors flippantly addict people to these drugs? Of course not, they could give a shit, just like they don't particularly care about folks smoking pot. It's all about money and pharma has money so they're "allowed" to be drug dealers, they have a quasi-legal right to get people addicted to mind altering drugs because they have money. It's just sad in the grand scheme.

    My personal take, no matter how I look at it, I cannot help but ask myself; under what fair and just system should we the people accept that our individual rights are predicated upon money being spent advertising the cause in DC? It's bullshit. I don't even smoke pot, I quit before it was criminalized up here, but I wholly reject the criminalizing of pot. [All drugs to be honest.]
     

Share This Page