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

[oreo]

Well you are ignoring the supremacy clause

However, I wish the Feds would take the stance of adopting that states unique view on marijuana as to how it enforces it. Sorry for the bad wording, basically if Cali decriminalizes the government recognizes that position but if it remains illegal in Texas the government will allot resources if it wishes to help enforce the law.

The Supremacy Clause IS NOT an independent source of Federal power. It merely resolves that when Federal power is legitimate, and State law conflicts with it, Federal law controls.

But the Feds should not be able to enact criminal law. This is a traditional and long-recognized state prerogative.

Seriously?

If you want to go this route we can


Most marijuana is either international or intrastate commerce which gives the feds the right to intervene. If they don't want that trade they can make it illegal. I would know, I smoke weed


And the fed enacts plenty of criminal laws... thats what a federal offense is.

Yeah--like Fast & Furious.

 

[oreo]

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?

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

Yeah--we had Obamacare shoved down our throats--what IF the U.S supreme court doesn't overrule it? Are the states just supposed to bend over and take it--and then Obama will send the Feds out to arrest everyone who refuses to pay for it--throw them in Federal prison--like they do with someone who grows or smokes weed?

I would like to see how that one turns out for the Federal Government--the dumb A-holes--

 

[asterism]

WHERE THE **** ARE THE LIBS?

Hell, at least Chimpola got some resistance from the right when he spent like a drunken Kennedy.

I know y'all are looking in on this thread....Are your heads really buried that far up Boiking's ass that y'all can't utter so much as a peep?

WHERE THE **** ARE THE LIBS?

Hell, at least Chimpola got some resistance from the right when he spent like a drunken Kennedy.

I know y'all are looking in on this thread....Are your heads really buried that far up Boiking's ass that y'all can't utter so much as a peep?

YES THEY ARE

Oh, we're here all right. We're just amused at all of this phony outrage. And I will tell you that I DO disagree with that policy. But if you think that it's enough to make me support a wingnut for POTUS you're sadly mistaken, my misinformed friend.

Your outrage would seem much less phony if you would also be outraged at.....

Is it possible that reasonable people can disagree? How about these counterpoints? I don't necessarily disagree with you on all of these points but you certainly have stated them in one-way terms.

1) Government trying to tell a woman and her doctor what she can or cannot do with her body.

Why? She can't sell her kidney. She can't cut off her foot for the good parking spots.

2) Government telling us that we cannot enjoy recreational drugs.

Is crack recreational?

3) Government telling two people that they cannot have a legalized recognition of marriage just because they happen to be of the same sex.

Why is this a government function in the first place? Oh yeah,the benefits. Why is that the default structure?

4) Government telling a gay person that they cannot serve our nation openly and must hide who they are.

I got nothin' for that.

5) Government telling someone that is dying that they cannot choose to end their life with dignity with the help of a willing physician.

There is no dignity in suicide and it's rife for manipulation. Advance directives, DNRs and living wills are already quite effective. Death by overdose with consent given under duress or faulty mental capacity is horrendous.

6) Government telling a family that they do not have the right to determine when the plug is pulled on a loved one who will never recover from a vegetative state like Terri Schiavo.

Again, DNRs, living wills, and advance directives are the key here and they already exist. The issue in the Terri Schiavo case is that that parents wanted on thing and the husband who had a girlfriend on the side wanted something else. Since he had moved on from his wife he should not have been next of kin. The government actually is the proper authority in a dispute like this, IMO.

7) Government regulating what questions a pediatrician may ask parents.

Pediatricians aren't weapons experts, nor pool safety experts, nor car safety experts. Why should they be allowed to pry into personal lives so much? They don't ask about parental drug or sexual habits. They don't ask about parental literacy. They don't ask about (nor even research) the criminal records of the parent's live-in significant others. Aren't those important to child safety?

So until you are ready to be outraged at these issues as well don't talk to us about government overreach. You only make yourselves look foolish.

You consider protection of 2nd Amendment rights government overreach?

 

[oreo]

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



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?

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

It's not the Constitution that the Federal Government is basing its authority on, it's the precedents set by the prosecution of the Civil War.

It's high time* for peace between the States and Washington DC.


* Thought thunk prior to perception of pun, but I like it. Pun intended.

Well there won't be any if the Federal Government insist's on stepping on States Rights.

I am just afraid what happens if the U.S. Supreme court doesn't overrule Obamacare. Are the states just supposed to bend over and take this crap? It's just B.S.

 

[oreo]

Since when does an agency have the authority to take away a constitutional right of anyone?




Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban

You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
Medical-pot users fuming over ATF's gun-sale ban - Washington Times

No this administration (Eric Holder) just wants to give semi-automatics to violent Mexican drug cartels--and SCREW the cancer patient that gets relief from medical marijuana--who simply wants a gun for personal protection. THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW---

 

[oreo]

Since when does an agency have the authority to take away a constitutional right of anyone?




Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban

You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
Medical-pot users fuming over ATF's gun-sale ban - Washington Times

No this administration (Eric Holder) just wants to give semi-automatics to violent Mexican drug cartels--and SCREW the cancer patient that gets relief from medical marijuana--who simply wants a gun for personal protection. THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW---

 

[CT9]

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?

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

I disagree I don't believe it does.. I've thought about it and I don't think I'm going to convince you and I'm pretty sure you won't convince me.

 

[CT9]

The Supremacy Clause IS NOT an independent source of Federal power. It merely resolves that when Federal power is legitimate, and State law conflicts with it, Federal law controls.

But the Feds should not be able to enact criminal law. This is a traditional and long-recognized state prerogative.

Seriously?

If you want to go this route we can


Most marijuana is either international or intrastate commerce which gives the feds the right to intervene. If they don't want that trade they can make it illegal. I would know, I smoke weed


And the fed enacts plenty of criminal laws... thats what a federal offense is.

I guess you've never had any home grown? have you ever heard of Hydroponics?

No I've never smoked weed...

They don't care where it comes from, all you need is people travelling across state lines to get it. Whether they get caught or not, if someone who lives out of California gets it, the government will call it interstate commerce.

I smoke a lot more bud than you and you are brain dead.

 

[CT9]

The Supremacy Clause IS NOT an independent source of Federal power. It merely resolves that when Federal power is legitimate, and State law conflicts with it, Federal law controls.

But the Feds should not be able to enact criminal law. This is a traditional and long-recognized state prerogative.

Seriously?

If you want to go this route we can


Most marijuana is either international or intrastate commerce which gives the feds the right to intervene. If they don't want that trade they can make it illegal. I would know, I smoke weed


And the fed enacts plenty of criminal laws... thats what a federal offense is.

Yeah--like Fast & Furious.

I agree and your point?

I don't recall mentioning Fast and Furious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it is outrageous. They are already paying millions in taxes. If they shut them down they'll be paying ZERO. Hard to understand the rationale.

They want California to go broke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Well you are ignoring the supremacy clause

However, I wish the Feds would take the stance of adopting that states unique view on marijuana as to how it enforces it. Sorry for the bad wording, basically if Cali decriminalizes the government recognizes that position but if it remains illegal in Texas the government will allot resources if it wishes to help enforce the law.

You are ignoring your brain.

The federal government does not enforce state law.

 

[editec]

Ask yourselves WHY Obama is doing this?

How can this help his chance of winning the next election?

Many of you imagine that Obama is a lefty and also that lefties are all pot smokers, right?

So why is Obama doing this, right now?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Seriously?

If you want to go this route we can


Most marijuana is either international or intrastate commerce which gives the feds the right to intervene. If they don't want that trade they can make it illegal. I would know, I smoke weed


And the fed enacts plenty of criminal laws... thats what a federal offense is.

I guess you've never had any home grown? have you ever heard of Hydroponics?

No I've never smoked weed...

They don't care where it comes from, all you need is people travelling across state lines to get it. Whether they get caught or not, if someone who lives out of California gets it, the government will call it interstate commerce.

I smoke a lot more bud than you and you are brain dead.

No I've never smoked weed

I smoke a lot more bud than you

So which is it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since when does an agency have the authority to take away a constitutional right of anyone?




Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban

You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
Medical-pot users fuming over ATF's gun-sale ban - Washington Times

No this administration (Eric Holder) just wants to give semi-automatics to violent Mexican drug cartels--and SCREW the cancer patient that gets relief from medical marijuana--who simply wants a gun for personal protection. THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW---

obana doesn't want to take your guns, isn't that what his defenders have told you?
Bwah hahhahahahahahahahah

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ask yourselves WHY Obama is doing this?

How can this help his chance of winning the next election?

Many of you imagine that Obama is a lefty and also that lefties are all pot smokers, right?

So why is Obama doing this, right now?

because he is a 2 faced ************ and a shitty leader....and he should fall flat on his face over this....i am just waiting to hear California's response to this....

 

[DaGoose]

WHERE THE **** ARE THE LIBS?

Hell, at least Chimpola got some resistance from the right when he spent like a drunken Kennedy.

I know y'all are looking in on this thread....Are your heads really buried that far up Boiking's ass that y'all can't utter so much as a peep?

Oh, we're here all right. We're just amused at all of this phony outrage. And I will tell you that I DO disagree with that policy. But if you think that it's enough to make me support a wingnut for POTUS you're sadly mistaken, my misinformed friend.

Your outrage would seem much less phony if you would also be outraged at.....

Is it possible that reasonable people can disagree? How about these counterpoints? I don't necessarily disagree with you on all of these points but you certainly have stated them in one-way terms.



Why? She can't sell her kidney. She can't cut off her foot for the good parking spots.



Is crack recreational?



Why is this a government function in the first place? Oh yeah,the benefits. Why is that the default structure?



I got nothin' for that.



There is no dignity in suicide and it's rife for manipulation. Advance directives, DNRs and living wills are already quite effective. Death by overdose with consent given under duress or faulty mental capacity is horrendous.



Again, DNRs, living wills, and advance directives are the key here and they already exist. The issue in the Terri Schiavo case is that that parents wanted on thing and the husband who had a girlfriend on the side wanted something else. Since he had moved on from his wife he should not have been next of kin. The government actually is the proper authority in a dispute like this, IMO.

7) Government regulating what questions a pediatrician may ask parents.

Pediatricians aren't weapons experts, nor pool safety experts, nor car safety experts. Why should they be allowed to pry into personal lives so much? They don't ask about parental drug or sexual habits. They don't ask about parental literacy. They don't ask about (nor even research) the criminal records of the parent's live-in significant others. Aren't those important to child safety?

So until you are ready to be outraged at these issues as well don't talk to us about government overreach. You only make yourselves look foolish.

You consider protection of 2nd Amendment rights government overreach?

Why? She can't sell her kidney. She can't cut off her foot for the good parking spots.

She should be able to sell whatever she wants (including sex) and the last time I looked it wasn't against the law to cut off your own foot.

Is crack recreational?

No

Why is this a government function in the first place? Oh yeah,the benefits. Why is that the default structure?

I agree that marriage should NOT be a "government function" but it is what it is and they should not discriminate.

There is no dignity in suicide and it's rife for manipulation. Advance directives, DNRs and living wills are already quite effective. Death by overdose with consent given under duress or faulty mental capacity is horrendous.

So you're OK with the government taking that option away from you and making decisions for you and your doctor?

Again, DNRs, living wills, and advance directives are the key here and they already exist. The issue in the Terri Schiavo case is that that parents wanted on thing and the husband who had a girlfriend on the side wanted something else. Since he had moved on from his wife he should not have been next of kin. The government actually is the proper authority in a dispute like this, IMO.

Nope. I strongly disagree. This is NOT a legitimate role for government. I should clarify though. It's not a role for the "legislative or executive branches". Local courts are another matter. In other words, the Bush Administration was WRONG to get involved.

Pediatricians aren't weapons experts, nor pool safety experts, nor car safety experts. Why should they be allowed to pry into personal lives so much? They don't ask about parental drug or sexual habits. They don't ask about parental literacy. They don't ask about (nor even research) the criminal records of the parent's live-in significant others. Aren't those important to child safety?

If parents get offended then they can simply change pediatricians. The government has no role in the patient/doctor relationship. Period.

You consider protection of 2nd Amendment rights government overreach?

Not sure how this fits in with this conversation but I'm all for personal rights and liberty. However, if the 2nd Amendment is taken as an absolute right then government cannot prevent felons or even 6 year old children from packing handguns around. They are entitled to the same rights as you and I.

 

[Jackson]

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?

I think this is a trend we have just begun seeing the past couple of years. The federal government used to be there FOR the states. Now it seems they are against the the states.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, where are all the "keep your laws off my body" liberoidals, now that Boiking's regime is the tool of their oppression?

Anyone?

Beuller?

I can't speak for "liberoidals" or any other made up group by jerks like odd-dude. But I digress. The Supremacy Clause makes the federal action legal but there is no rational reason not to remove MJ from the list of schedule I drugs and allow each state to outlaw or regulate MJ.

I suppose Big Pharma is opposed, as well as the adult beverage industry, given that MJ can be grown even in a small apartment. But state and local gov't would benefit from a tax on the black market in MJ which is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Also, the drug trafficking trade would take a big hit if Americans had a legal, safe and easy way to procure MJ. Tax Revenue would increase and fees might be collect for cultivation. The cost of enforcement would drop by millions of dollars and for those who continued to cheat high fines would add to the coffers.

The war on drugs is a failure; a new strategy needs to be developed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

It's not the Constitution that the Federal Government is basing its authority on, it's the precedents set by the prosecution of the Civil War.

It's high time* for peace between the States and Washington DC.


* Thought thunk prior to perception of pun, but I like it. Pun intended.

Peace yes. You suggest submission.
The Constitution does not specify nor does it mention where the federal government can compel individuals to purchase a product from the federal government.
Therefore the authority to compel to purchase is non existent. Ergo, the federal government CANNOT compel citizens to buy health insurance from the federal government.
The 10th Amendment is clear on this question. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I see no ambiguity there. Obamacare is unconstitutional.

You are correct. The provision demanding we buy a product from a private company to be a citizen in good standing is unconstitutional.

 

[Nic_Driver]

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?

I am a conservative--and this is B.S.

In fact--since this is coming from the Justice Department--aka--Eric Holder who is up to his armpits with this Fast & Furious scandal--it may be nothing more than a political manuver for him to do a CYA. (Give semi--automatic weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels---but close down legitimate tax paying business's--UNBELIEVABLE.)

We have 17 states with medical marijuana approval in this country--and all we're doing is WASTING taxpayer dollars--that we don't have to chase down businesse's that are actually contributing to the tax revenue base.

OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT WORK.

I actually hadn't thought about that possiblilty but sure, it could be.