Marijuana Nullification on the Rise, Despite SCOTUS ruling!

[The2ndAmendment]

Federal government used the "Commerce Clause" to strike down state nullification of federal marijuana laws. The case was called Gonzales vs Raich (2005)

At the time, 10 states had already nullified them, since the ruling, instead of states repealing their nullification laws, 4 more states have also joined in.

This proves to you that the Federal Government is POWERLESS when operating outside its delegated authority. They can't do shit. What cant he feds do when both Blue and Red states don't give shit?

Nullify everything that both parties can agree on, fast. Enjoy while the SCOTUS kicks screams and flails like a helpless child.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Come on Libbies, Party with the Founding Fathers for once! They all smoked pot!

List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FA_Q2]

Good. We need real change on the asinine drug war. It will be tough for the feds to enforce drug laws if the states do not play.

 

[NoNukes]

Good. We need real change on the asinine drug war. It will be tough for the feds to enforce drug laws if the states do not play.

Alaska told the Feds to fuck off when it came to marijuana laws.

 

[editec]

Federal government used the "Commerce Clause" to strike down state nullification of federal marijuana laws. The case was called Gonzales vs Raich (2005)

At the time, 10 states had already nullified them, since the ruling, instead of states repealing their nullification laws, 4 more states have also joined in.

This proves to you that the Federal Government is POWERLESS when operating outside its delegated authority. They can't do shit. What cant he feds do when both Blue and Red states don't give shit?

Nullify everything that both parties can agree on, fast. Enjoy while the SCOTUS kicks screams and flails like a helpless child.

The Marijuania issue is an excellent case for why we need a new constitutional convention.

The states can legally overturn the FEDs power, it can blow the SCOTUS out of the water, too.

The ELASTIC CLAUSE of the Consitution simply grants the FED so much power that the concept of STATES rights becomes something of a joke.

 

[FA_Q2]

Federal government used the "Commerce Clause" to strike down state nullification of federal marijuana laws. The case was called Gonzales vs Raich (2005)

At the time, 10 states had already nullified them, since the ruling, instead of states repealing their nullification laws, 4 more states have also joined in.

This proves to you that the Federal Government is POWERLESS when operating outside its delegated authority. They can't do shit. What cant he feds do when both Blue and Red states don't give shit?

Nullify everything that both parties can agree on, fast. Enjoy while the SCOTUS kicks screams and flails like a helpless child.

The Marijuania issue is an excellent case for why we need a new constitutional convention.

The states can legally overturn the FEDs power, it can blow the SCOTUS out of the water, too.

The ELASTIC CLAUSE of the Consitution simply grants the FED so much power that the concept of STATES rights becomes something of a joke.

I am confused now. I just read a post by you that professed nullification as a failed concept and something the states have no right doing. Have you reversed positions on that as it seems that you are advocating for nullification right here.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Federal government used the "Commerce Clause" to strike down state nullification of federal marijuana laws. The case was called Gonzales vs Raich (2005)

At the time, 10 states had already nullified them, since the ruling, instead of states repealing their nullification laws, 4 more states have also joined in.

This proves to you that the Federal Government is POWERLESS when operating outside its delegated authority. They can't do shit. What cant he feds do when both Blue and Red states don't give shit?

Nullify everything that both parties can agree on, fast. Enjoy while the SCOTUS kicks screams and flails like a helpless child.

The Marijuania issue is an excellent case for why we need a new constitutional convention.

The states can legally overturn the FEDs power, it can blow the SCOTUS out of the water, too.

The ELASTIC CLAUSE of the Consitution simply grants the FED so much power that the concept of STATES rights becomes something of a joke.

I am confused now. I just read a post by you that professed nullification as a failed concept and something the states have no right doing. Have you reversed positions on that as it seems that you are advocating for nullification right here.

He meant that the SCOTUS has not been an impartial and honest arbiter of the federal government' power, intentional interpreting the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause (the libtard "elastic clause") contrary to how the States understood them at the time of ratification. He simply used "shorthand" to express that view, or at least so I hope. I would also advocate A Constitutional Convention, except, I would do as many fear would happen, dissolve the federal government entirely an create a new document based on the additional Libertarian Philosophies expounded by Lysander Spooner and other thinkers who continued the Enlightenment, because obviously our current document failed to achieve its goals.

And befopre you freak out, remember that no Convention of delegates can "destroy the Constitution and replace it with their own" unless 3/4 of the States actually ratify it. That's why I always get a laugh out of the people who say "OMGERD a Constitution Convention would place us under an even worse tyranny!" Really? I thought that the States and their People would have to ratify it before it went into effect, it is unlikely, especially with today's' communication technology, that there would exist even a handful of citizens who weren't not actively aware of the process at hand, and would definitely pay attention to the ratification process in their own states. Yes, even the "drink and party" young generation would be fully aware of such a monumental event.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Marijuania issue is an excellent case for why we need a new constitutional convention.

The states can legally overturn the FEDs power, it can blow the SCOTUS out of the water, too.

The ELASTIC CLAUSE of the Consitution simply grants the FED so much power that the concept of STATES rights becomes something of a joke.

I am confused now. I just read a post by you that professed nullification as a failed concept and something the states have no right doing. Have you reversed positions on that as it seems that you are advocating for nullification right here.

He meant that the SCOTUS has not been an impartial and honest arbiter of the federal government' power, intentional interpreting the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause (the libtard "elastic clause") contrary to how the States understood them at the time of ratification. He simply used "shorthand" to express that view, or at least so I hope. I would also advocate A Constitutional Convention, except, I would do as many fear would happen, dissolve the federal government entirely an create a new document based on the additional Libertarian Philosophies expounded by Lysander Spooner and other thinkers who continued the Enlightenment, because obviously our current document failed to achieve its goals.

And befopre you freak out, remember that no Convention of delegates can "destroy the Constitution and replace it with their own" unless 3/4 of the States actually ratify it. That's why I always get a laugh out of the people who say "OMGERD a Constitution Convention would place us under an even worse tyranny!" Really? I thought that the States and their People would have to ratify it before it went into effect, it is unlikely, especially with today's' communication technology, that there would exist even a handful of citizens who weren't not actively aware of the process at hand, and would definitely pay attention to the ratification process in their own states. Yes, even the "drink and party" young generation would be fully aware of such a monumental event.

You should know that I am not prone to randomly freak out on you

Anyway, a new convention is unlikely as I don’t think you are going to get anything that the right and left will agree on atm. The sad truth is that both would use the chance to push an agenda that has little to nothing to do with freedom and in the end, no one would pass it.

The constitution is well in need of a redo more to get rid of the asinine ‘interpretations’ (and that is used VERY loosely) than to actually change much though. We have taken a document that supported a limited but strong central government into a singular overbearing central entity.

 

[Katzndogz]

Come on Libbies, Party with the Founding Fathers for once! They all smoked pot!

List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reading your link, it says that the Founding Fathers grew it, but didn't use it.

 

[Katzndogz]

It must serve some purpose for the United States to become a nation of drug addicts and drug imposed zombies.

 

[whitehall]

Same old a-holes pretend to support the 2nd Amendment while they post wild nonsense about wanting to legalize the sale of drugs to your kids.

 

[Katzndogz]

We become a nation of druggies. Then what? The need for not drug using immigrants becomes greater because Americans are too impaired to function.

 

[FA_Q2]

Same old a-holes pretend to support the 2nd Amendment while they post wild nonsense about wanting to legalize the sale of drugs to your kids.

Why don’t you find one single example of anyone here wanting to legalize the sale of drugs to minors. Just one little example.

Oh, and you might want to actually get some facts as to how effective those laws are at stopping youth abuse of drugs:

Why More Kids Smoke Marijuana Than Cigarettes | Alternet
Teens: Pot Easier To Buy Than Beer - CBS News
Study Says It?s Easier For Teens To Buy Marijuana Than Beer | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform

As a teen, I ALWAYS had access to pot even though I never wanted it – did not like pot. Drinking OTOH, was harder to accomplish though we were avid drunk partiers

 

[Katzndogz]

Same old a-holes pretend to support the 2nd Amendment while they post wild nonsense about wanting to legalize the sale of drugs to your kids.

Why don’t you find one single example of anyone here wanting to legalize the sale of drugs to minors. Just one little example.

Oh, and you might want to actually get some facts as to how effective those laws are at stopping youth abuse of drugs:

Why More Kids Smoke Marijuana Than Cigarettes | Alternet
Teens: Pot Easier To Buy Than Beer - CBS News
Study Says It?s Easier For Teens To Buy Marijuana Than Beer | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform

As a teen, I ALWAYS had access to pot even though I never wanted it – did not like pot. Drinking OTOH, was harder to accomplish though we were avid drunk partiers

Will legalizing pot change any of that?

 

[NoNukes]

We become a nation of druggies. Then what? The need for not drug using immigrants becomes greater because Americans are too impaired to function.

The United States is already a nation of druggies with legal, prescription drugs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We become a nation of druggies. Then what? The need for not drug using immigrants becomes greater because Americans are too impaired to function.

Using this logic we must already be a nation of drunks. So what's the difference? Might as well legalize the drugs.

 

[editec]

Federal government used the "Commerce Clause" to strike down state nullification of federal marijuana laws. The case was called Gonzales vs Raich (2005)

At the time, 10 states had already nullified them, since the ruling, instead of states repealing their nullification laws, 4 more states have also joined in.

This proves to you that the Federal Government is POWERLESS when operating outside its delegated authority. They can't do shit. What cant he feds do when both Blue and Red states don't give shit?

Nullify everything that both parties can agree on, fast. Enjoy while the SCOTUS kicks screams and flails like a helpless child.

The Marijuania issue is an excellent case for why we need a new constitutional convention.

The states can legally overturn the FEDs power, it can blow the SCOTUS out of the water, too.

The ELASTIC CLAUSE of the Consitution simply grants the FED so much power that the concept of STATES rights becomes something of a joke.

I am confused now. I just read a post by you that professed nullification as a failed concept and something the states have no right doing. Have you reversed positions on that as it seems that you are advocating for nullification right here.

I just proposed the PATH for how states REWRITE the constitution.

That is NOT nullifying the FEDS laws, that is taking AWAY the FEDS right to evoke those laws.

See the difference?

Right NOW the FEDS have the legal right and the states have NO right to supercede their laws by nullifying them.

It will take a CHANGE in the CONSTITUTION that is NOT subject to review by the SCOTUS.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION that rewrites the consitution is is the ONLY LEGAL way to do that.

Good question though FA_Q2, and thanks for giving me the change to explain the difference.

 

[Katzndogz]

We become a nation of druggies. Then what? The need for not drug using immigrants becomes greater because Americans are too impaired to function.

Using this logic we must already be a nation of drunks. So what's the difference? Might as well legalize the drugs.

We legalized alcohol and spent the next 70 years fighting the effects of legalization. Drugs are much worse because a person can always sober up but the effects of drug addiction make that less likely.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We become a nation of druggies. Then what? The need for not drug using immigrants becomes greater because Americans are too impaired to function.

Using this logic we must already be a nation of drunks. So what's the difference? Might as well legalize the drugs.

We legalized alcohol and spent the next 70 years fighting the effects of legalization. Drugs are much worse because a person can always sober up but the effects of drug addiction make that less likely.

Right, because alcoholism isn't addicting at all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is (as usual) a whole lot of emotion and ignorance posted above but very few facts or reasoning.

1. Drugs are regulated under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and placed within one of five schedules;

2. MJ is place into Schedule 1 which includes substances that meet the following descriptions:
A. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
B. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision;

3. Given this criteria Alcohol and Tobacco should be drugs placed within Schedule I;

4. A multi-billion dollar black market exists which could be exploited by states to balance budgets, provide treatment for alcohol and other drugs (AOL) treatment/rehab including tobacco;

5. Speculation: The adult beverage industry and drug manufacturer's lobby against MJ deregulation out of concern that their products might be supplanted by a few tokes of a relatively safe and inexpensive substance.

6. MJ does have a high potential for abuse. One of the specious arguments against MJ has been the concern over its abuse while operating a motor vehicle. Two points to consider: 1) That is already happening; 2) Training of enforcement officers and chemical testing already exist to determine if a driver is under the influence of a drug.

7. MJ is a cash crop and is the primary source of the economy in several Northern California Counties. Unfortunately more and more what was a cottage industry is being taken over by organized crime - some from south of our border.