What do the State Right's people think of this?

[thereisnospoon]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

constitution.... supremacy clause......

From West's Law
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

Read more: Supremacy Clause: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

WHat you people who have no argument in furtherance of the Supremacy Clause fail on is this....The Tenth Amendment is specific on the powers of the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause applies ONLY to the powers granted to the federal government.
Clearly, the Supremacy Clause exists to "sew together" laws in the respective states which seek to accomplish the same thing, but are vague in nature and may be contradictory.
Also, these state laws may create a hodgepodge of regulations that are difficult to understand.
The key phrase in the Supremacy Clause is "exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution"...Essentially the fact is the federal government cannot simply enact laws that the Constitution expressly prohibits. That is any action outsider the boundaries of "enumerated powers".
Be careful what you wish for.
If a totalitarian government is what you seek, may I remind you that there are many dictatorial and totalitarian states around the world. Pick one, let me know and I will help you pack. As a matter of fact I will buy your one way ticket. And as a condition of your dis-satisfaction, you may not return.
BYE!

 

[Inthemiddle]

WHat you people who have no argument in furtherance of the Supremacy Clause fail on is this....The Tenth Amendment is specific on the powers of the federal government.

Oh geez, you're not trying to babble on about the false notion that the 10th amendment reserves any and all rights to the states, are you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

WHat you people who have no argument in furtherance of the Supremacy Clause fail on is this....The Tenth Amendment is specific on the powers of the federal government.

Oh geez, you're not trying to babble on about the false notion that the 10th amendment reserves any and all rights to the states, are you?

No..Just the ones that exist in the absence of federal powers.
In other words, If the Constitution does not state explicitly the federal government has a particular power or authority, that power or authority is "reserved to the states or the people".
It is what it its.
Just because you people object to this does not mean it is not true.
Oh you can whine and spin. It doesn't matter.
The rest of us know your angle. You view the US Constitution as a road block to Obama's agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

WHat you people who have no argument in furtherance of the Supremacy Clause fail on is this....The Tenth Amendment is specific on the powers of the federal government.

Oh geez, you're not trying to babble on about the false notion that the 10th amendment reserves any and all rights to the states, are you?

That's exactly what the 10th Amendment says, isn't it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WHat you people who have no argument in furtherance of the Supremacy Clause fail on is this....The Tenth Amendment is specific on the powers of the federal government.

Oh geez, you're not trying to babble on about the false notion that the 10th amendment reserves any and all rights to the states, are you?

oh geeze if it's not in the cConstitution the feds cannot have a say over the issue.. If the states did not give the feds the authority the feds don't have the authority. Thats the beauty of the 10th amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WHat you people who have no argument in furtherance of the Supremacy Clause fail on is this....The Tenth Amendment is specific on the powers of the federal government.

Oh geez, you're not trying to babble on about the false notion that the 10th amendment reserves any and all rights to the states, are you?

No..Just the ones that exist in the absence of federal powers.
In other words, If the Constitution does not state explicitly the federal government has a particular power or authority, that power or authority is "reserved to the states or the people".
It is what it its.
Just because you people object to this does not mean it is not true.
Oh you can whine and spin. It doesn't matter.
The rest of us know your angle. You view the US Constitution as a road block to Obama's agenda.

careful he like's to play word games and when you call him on it he will place you on his ignore list and run home when you don't let him play the word game.

 

[Inthemiddle]

[No..Just the ones that exist in the absence of federal powers.

Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of that argument. The 10th amendment itself has certain limits, particularly the limit of applying to RETAINED rights as opposed to potentially developed rights. But that's probably either over your head (inherent ignorance) or through your head (intentional ignorance).

In other words, If the Constitution does not state explicitly the federal government has a particular power or authority, that power or authority is "reserved to the states or the people".

Oh, so wrong, BTW

It is what it its.
Just because you people object to this does not mean it is not true.
Oh you can whine and spin. It doesn't matter.

You may object to the truth, but it is what it is and your objections to not mean the truth is not true. You can whine and spin all you want, it doesn't matter.

The rest of us know your angle.

You don't seem to know anything, because I have no "angle" other than to take an honest approach to these things.

You view the US Constitution as a road block to Obama's agenda.

No I don't, not at all. But if I were alot more biased I might see it as such. Extremist conservatives, of which you seem to fit the mold, see the constitution as a road block to Obama's agenda. You think that his agenda is unconstitutional and that the constitution is the only thing that is protecting you from the "evils" of Obama's allegedly [unconstitutionally] socialist agenda.

I, on the other hand, have significant misgivings about Obama as a President, and want to see him voted out of office. But instead of fixating on such ridiculous positions as to call constitutional measures unconstitutional or trying to label him with inflammatory accusations, I focus on the failing of the man's policies, without trying to rewrite reality or stooping to the level of 2004 "Anybody-but-Bush" style Democrats. Unlike the majority of the Democratic and Republican parties, I have a mind of my own and can remain critical of various ideas and policies without having to invest dogmatic faith into radio and/or TV pundits.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That's exactly what the 10th Amendment says, isn't it?

No, it's not. The 10th amendment reserves to the states those powers they were understood to have prior to the adoption of the US constitution, minus the ones the constitution diverted to the federal government. I.E. if the state did not have the right before the 10th amendment, it did not have the right after it. That's the main reason why states cannot establish for themselves any requirement or qualification for a Congress seat that is not in the constitution. Nor why those ridiculous birther bills a few months back would withstand constitutional muster. Just as an example.

 

[AVG-JOE]

obama.... more broken promises...

No suprise there he is a politician.

I'm sure some people, that were HOPING for CHANGE (tee hee), were surprised

Surprised? Not really..... More like disappointment in an extreme lack of leadership skills.

The fact that Obama turned out to be just another politician sucking lobbyist cock for campaign money isn't surprising, just disappointing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[No..Just the ones that exist in the absence of federal powers.

Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of that argument. The 10th amendment itself has certain limits, particularly the limit of applying to RETAINED rights as opposed to potentially developed rights. But that's probably either over your head (inherent ignorance) or through your head (intentional ignorance).

In other words, If the Constitution does not state explicitly the federal government has a particular power or authority, that power or authority is "reserved to the states or the people".

Oh, so wrong, BTW



You may object to the truth, but it is what it is and your objections to not mean the truth is not true. You can whine and spin all you want, it doesn't matter.

The rest of us know your angle.

You don't seem to know anything, because I have no "angle" other than to take an honest approach to these things.

You view the US Constitution as a road block to Obama's agenda.

No I don't, not at all. But if I were alot more biased I might see it as such. Extremist conservatives, of which you seem to fit the mold, see the constitution as a road block to Obama's agenda. You think that his agenda is unconstitutional and that the constitution is the only thing that is protecting you from the "evils" of Obama's allegedly [unconstitutionally] socialist agenda.

I, on the other hand, have significant misgivings about Obama as a President, and want to see him voted out of office. But instead of fixating on such ridiculous positions as to call constitutional measures unconstitutional or trying to label him with inflammatory accusations, I focus on the failing of the man's policies, without trying to rewrite reality or stooping to the level of 2004 "Anybody-but-Bush" style Democrats. Unlike the majority of the Democratic and Republican parties, I have a mind of my own and can remain critical of various ideas and policies without having to invest dogmatic faith into radio and/or TV pundits.

Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of that argument. The 10th amendment itself has certain limits, particularly the limit of applying to RETAINED rights as opposed to potentially developed rights.

States have rights to do as they please as long as it does not violate the constitution.
The feds can't enforce a right to marry because a right to marry is not a constitutinal right.
The Feds can enforce the right to keep and bear arms because it's a Constitutional right. see the difference?

 

[WillowTree]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

Do illegal drugs fall under State or Fed jurisdiction?