Dobbs & Bruen – the crudeness of the decisions is its own message

[pknopp]

No. They can’t. Absent a federal nexus (like interstate travel or distribution or something on federal property), they have no jurisdiction.

Now, if they are indeed alleging a federal crime (let’s say they claim they were tracking the distribution network over state lines) they may have that nexus. But if you’re sitting in your stoop outside of your apartment in some street in the Bronx or Manhattan, and a federal agent happens to see you smoking a blunt, he has no jurisdiction to arrest you.

You’re just wrong.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that federal law controls when state law and federal law conflict. The Constitution itself, however, provides for an exception when it comes to the exercise of police powers. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution generally delegates police powers to the states.

In practical terms, this means that states cannot prevent federal prosecutions of their citizens who are using medical marijuana, but by making such use noncriminal under their own laws, they can eliminate state prosecutions of those citizens under state law.

Medical Marijuana and Federal Law.

Oddly it seems actual criminal defense lawyers don't understand that the Feds can't arrest you. Odd how that would be.

 

[Billiejeens]

But SCOTUS has ruled that people have a right to privacy and the "right to privacy" is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights unless you want to consider the 4th amendment's admonishment that the people have the right to be secure in their homes, persons, personal affects, etc. (paraphrased) as a stand-in for "privacy".

yes, that is the erroneous leap that they made in 1973

 

[BackAgain]

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that federal law controls when state law and federal law conflict. The Constitution itself, however, provides for an exception when it comes to the exercise of police powers. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution generally delegates police powers to the states.

In practical terms, this means that states cannot prevent federal prosecutions of their citizens who are using medical marijuana, but by making such use noncriminal under their own laws, they can eliminate state prosecutions of those citizens under state law.

Medical Marijuana and Federal Law.

Oddly it seems actual criminal defense lawyers don't understand that the Feds can't arrest you. Odd how that would be.

The feds still need a federal nexus. Odd that you simply can’t find your way clear to acknowledging that basic fact.

 

[Billiejeens]

Where in the constitution was power given to our government to force a 9 month pregnancy on a woman or girl if she and her husband or partner are not ready to have children in their lives yet? Not enough money to be a good parent, still in college, still a child and under age, date raped, or birth control didn't work, or partner left when they found out and were not ready to be a father etc etc etc???

where in the constitution does it give government the power to know what goes on in our bedrooms, or in our doctor's offices, about our own medical conditions, to even know we have had sex and gotten pregnant???

Well, it is probably clear when you come forward and say -
That's whole murder thing, we would like society to look the other way while we do that.

 

[pknopp]

The feds still need a federal nexus. Odd that you simply can’t find your way clear to acknowledging that basic fact.

They broke Federal law just like the defense attorney's in my link note. Also to note, all you are doing is posting unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Lesh]

yep…Roe was obviously results driven ans poorly done

That may or may not be true but that applies to this ruling certainly

 

[BackAgain]

They broke Federal law just like the defense attorney's in my link note. Also to note, all you are doing is posting unsubstantiated opinion.

No. I’m relating the legal requirement to you to try to raise you out of the muck of your ignorance.

You know, you can’t cross state lines to traffic women into prostitution. The feds could nail you hard for that conduct. But if you conduct your criminal behavior to within just your own state using victims who never crossed the state line, then … no federal violation of law. Why not? No federal nexus. The behavior is still a crime, but not a federal crime.

Here: feel free to read up a little. Federal Crimes

 

[struth]

That may or may not be true but that applies to this ruling certainly

this ruling was correctly done based on the logic in Roe

 

[westwall]

That may or may not be true but that applies to this ruling certainly

No, it doesn't. The reversal merely returned the Court to what it once was, a determiner of what is Constitutional, and what is not. It decided AGAINST being a subservient aid to the Executive OR Legislative branches of government.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you speaking of yourself?


Second Amendment

Vietnam proved the Miller decision completely wrong, short barreled shotguns were used extensively there. But even Miller didn't limit the private ownership of other firearms. Then you commies started going ass wild with other regulations, which prompted the court to step in again in Heller and McDonald which verified an individuals right to own a hand gun. The newest ruling in NY pretty much killed the "may issue" laws in many States, States can no longer require a person to prove a need to carry a handgun in public for self defense. And you can bet more decisions will follow as you commies try to find ways around the current decisions.

BTW, red text is reserved for mods.

.

 

[OKTexas]

LOL, I knew you'd attempt some twisted justification for that. That along with your inability to debate the topic without the childish name calling speaks volumes.

There's no reason to debate historical events, they happened and that can't be changed. All we can do is allow those event to inform our decisions going forward. Only ignorant people like you want to club people with historical events they had absolutely nothing to do with. Now FOAD you're a waste of bandwidth.

.

 

[OKTexas]

No. The Feds can’t arrest you in NY for smoking weed in NY. No federal jurisdiction.

For smoking weed, no they can't arrest you, for possessing it, you bet your ass they can. It's a violation of federal law and any fed has jurisdiction.

.

 

[pknopp]

No. I’m relating the legal requirement to you to try to raise you out of the muck of your ignorance.

You know, you can’t cross state lines to traffic women into prostitution. The feds could nail you hard for that conduct. But if you conduct your criminal behavior to within just your own state using victims who never crossed the state line, then … no federal violation of law. Why not? No federal nexus. The behavior is still a crime, but not a federal crime.

Here: feel free to read up a little. Federal Crimes

I posted the link noting where they can. It's why people want the Federal government end their classification of pot as an illegal substance. People aren't trying to get that done to protect interstate dealers.