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

[Skylar]

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

 

[martybegan]

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

 

[Skylar]

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

The pot laws are a conflict of state and federal powers. The right to same sex marriage is based in individual rights, not powers.

These are completely different bases. The courts and the law treat powers and rights very differently. There is no slippery slope

 

[martybegan]

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

And you run back to rulings because you know you have no real argument, only "because, because, because, derp derp derp"

 

[Skylar]

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

 

[martybegan]

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

 

[Skylar]

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

 

[Skylar]

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

 

[martybegan]

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

 

[martybegan]

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

 

[Skylar]

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't a legal authority. The courts aren't bound to your personal opinions. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

 

[Skylar]

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

 

[martybegan]

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't. They're not. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

 

[martybegan]

Well some States have decided that you lose your right to free exercise when you try to sell something. But that's OK to people like Skylar because they hate religious people.

Also guns are icky, so the 2nd amendment can be ignored.

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.

In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.

If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't. They're not. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....I've never even mentioned 'free exercise' in this thread. You're throwing a tantrum now.

I'm having a discussion on the slippery slope argument related to pot laws and marriage or abortion. If you'd like to join, feel free.

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes. About the slippery slope of pot laws and how they could effect abortion or marriage rights.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

 

[martybegan]

It's not about a slippery slope, it's about hypocrisy.

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't. They're not. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

 

[martybegan]

it's all part of the same continuum . And can't you have more than one debate at once?

Too taxing?

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

 

[Skylar]

This thread is about the slippery slope. The likely legal outcomes to things like marriage or abortion in the conflict regarding pot laws. And there is no slippery slope. Pot laws have no effect on marriage or abortion.....as pot laws have a completely different legal basis. Pot laws are based in powers. Abortion and Marriage are based in rights.

That's the discussion that you've jumped into the middle of. And you citing your personal opinion as the law is irrelevant to any slippery slope argument as your personal opinion isn't predictive to any legal outcome. No one cites you in any law or ruling. No one gives a shit what you agree with or what you don't.

Either address the law and rights as they exist.......or wallow in irrelevance in any slippery slope discussion regarding the law. As only the law and rights as they exist offer us any significant predictive value on actual legal outcomes.

Your personal opinion predicts jack shit.

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't. They're not. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Your personal opinion on what the law and rights 'oughta' be isn't part of a legal 'continuum', as you aren't a legal authority. Your personal opinion is gloriously irrelevant to any discussion on legal outcomes as your opinions predict nothing.

We're discussing likely legal outcomes, the erosion of marriage or abortion rights due to the conflict on pot laws. And there is no likely erosion, as the two issues have completely different legal basis.

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?