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

[AVG-JOE]

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?

"Why?" is a damn good question.


"Why NOW?" is THE question of the event.

 

[bripat9643]

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'm 100% opposed to what the federal government is doing. However, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Health insurance?

Forced purchase of a product?

Submission?

I thought we were talking about legalizing weed and I was advocating FOR the federal government backing off and giving the states control over ALL party supplies.

Is this going to become one of those 'weird' threads that phase in and out of different conversations? I don't like those.

 

[CT9]

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?

You and Harry are idiots... it was sarcasm because of the condescending manner you came off of...

Who doesnt know what dro and homegrown is.

But you and Harry make valid point... its the person not what they are saying.

 

[CT9]

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?

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.

You know you attempt to come off clever but you fail time and time again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I smoke a lot more bud than you

So which is it?

You and Harry are idiots... it was sarcasm because of the condescending manner you came off of...

Who doesnt know what dro and homegrown is.

But you and Harry make valid point... its the person not what they are saying.

That is not answering the question I challenge you to answer it since you felt the need to call me an idiot for asking you which is it?

First you said

No I've never smoked weed

and turn arouns in the same post and say

I smoke a lot more bud than you

So which is it?

OH and one more thing anyone can google about anything I am surprised it took you this long to find out what home grown and Hydroponics are.

 

[BlindBoo]

No doubt the States should have the power to regulate Marijuana consumption for recreational as well as medicinal purposes.

It's another example of the Federal Government power having grown out of control of the people.

Another broken promise from President Obama.

The Marijuana Tax act of 1937 was declared unconsitutional. But by the time that happened Congress voted itself the power to prohibit all forms of recreational drug use. Aided by a compliant media they can fright fuck the American Sheeple into believing anything.

To enforce Alcohol Prohibition they needed a Constitional Amendment giving them that specific power.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

That is utter bollocks.

 

[uscitizen]

No doubt the States should have the power to regulate Marijuana consumption for recreational as well as medicinal purposes.

It's another example of the Federal Government power having grown out of control of the people.

Another broken promise from President Obama.

The Marijuana Tax act of 1937 was declared unconsitutional. But by the time that happened Congress voted itself the power to prohibit all forms of recreational drug use. Aided by a compliant media they can fright fuck the American Sheeple into believing anything.

To enforce Alcohol Prohibition they needed a Constitional Amendment giving them that specific power.

Reagan claimed to be for states rights and yet he started the war on drugs.

republicans are for states rights just as long as it is something they support.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

That is utter bollocks.

The federal government does have the power to create criminal law but that power is severely limited.
For example, for a crime to be charged in federal court it must have been committed across state lines. It can be wire or mail fraud. Money laundering. Counterfeit currency. Federal Tax evasion. Violation of SEC regulations. Acts of a criminal nature against federally elected officials. Racketeering (RICO) but that is only in the case of interstate criminal acts. And of course crimes committed on federal lands. Certain civil rights statutes are also federal
All other laws are the responsibility of the respective states.
I have seen throughout this thread one common refrain. Liberals grasping at straws in an attempt to rationalize their belief that the federal government is all knowing and all powerful. They want to believe this because they look to the federal government for all of their answers and in some cases their very existence they believe is at the pleasure of the federal government. These people view themselves not as citizens bu
t as subjects

 

[jillian]

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......

 

[del]

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......

obama.... more broken promises...

 

[uscitizen]

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?

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

obama.... more broken promises...

No suprise there he is a politician.

 

[Charles_Main]

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 one bit. If the people and Government of a state have chosen to allow Medical Pot, the Fed should just mind it's own fucking Business. Were Broke and their using Resources to go after people doing something deemed legal in their state.

 

[Charles_Main]

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......

You really want to do there with Pot? Medical or not? The Federal Government had to do an end run around the Constitution to make it Illegal in the first place. It should have taken an Amendment like Prohibition, But instead in order to effectively make it illegal they said you have to buy Stamps to be able to posses pot. The Government is the only place you can get them from, and they weren't selling em. Making it Illegal by Regulating it then not Issuing any Stamps. Then Of course they gave us another sign of just how far they will go to keep a Herb Illegal and had it Moved to the Same Category as Coke, or Heroin. Labeling it a Dangerous Narcotic. It's a joke, and a waste of Money to keep fighting a war against a Plant.

 

[Kuros]

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

That is utter bollocks.

United State v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ."

. . .

The statute now before us forecloses the States from experimenting and exercising their own judgment in an area to which State lay claim by right of history and expertise, and it does so by regulating an activity beyond the realm of commerce in the ordinary and usual sense of that term. The tendency of this statute to displace state regulation in area of traditional state concern is evident from its territorial operation. There are over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in the Unites States. Each of these now has an invisible federal zone extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. Yet throughout these areas, school officials would find their own programs for the prohibition of guns in danger of displacement by the federal authority unless the State chooses to enact a parallel rule.
Absent a stronger connection with commercial concerns that are central to the Commerce Clause, that interference contradicts the federal balance the framers designed and that this Court is obliged to enforce.
For these reasons, I join in the opinion and judgment of the court.

- - - - - - - - -

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598

[considered the constitutionality of VAWA, which provided a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence]

[In Lopez] we observed that [the Gun-Free School Zones Act] was "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms." Reviewing our case law, we noted that "we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce."
Both petitioners and Justice Souter's dissent downplay the role that the economic nature of the regulated activity plays in our Commerce Clause analysis. But a fair reading of Lopez shows that the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision in that case.

- - - - - - -

Now, inthemiddle, tell me why the Supreme Court ignored these precedents in Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and went all the way back to Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942)?

Why does the AAA of 1938 forcing a farmer to pay a penalty for growing too much wheat, heard by a court in the deep dark of World War II have more to do with marijuana legislation than the gun control regulation struck down in Lopez or VAWA struck down in Morrison?

And lastly, why did Prohibition begin in 1919 with the passage of a Constitutional amendment, but the Federal post-Prohibition regulation of marijuana began with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970?

 

[Inthemiddle]

The federal government does have the power to create criminal law but that power is severely limited.
For example, for a crime to be charged in federal court it must have been committed across state lines. It can be wire or mail fraud. Money laundering. Counterfeit currency. Federal Tax evasion. Violation of SEC regulations. Acts of a criminal nature against federally elected officials. Racketeering (RICO) but that is only in the case of interstate criminal acts. And of course crimes committed on federal lands. Certain civil rights statutes are also federal

All other laws are the responsibility of the respective states.
I have seen throughout this thread one common refrain. Liberals grasping at straws in an attempt to rationalize their belief that the federal government is all knowing and all powerful. They want to believe this because they look to the federal government for all of their answers and in some cases their very existence they believe is at the pleasure of the federal government. These people view themselves not as citizens bu
t as subjects

So how do you explain this?

The federal government's power to legislate against criminal acts is not limited to "across state lines." It's just that, as a matter of convention, states will usually hold preference for acts that violate both state and federal law.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

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

 

[Kuros]

The federal government does have the power to create criminal law but that power is severely limited.
For example, for a crime to be charged in federal court it must have been committed across state lines. It can be wire or mail fraud. Money laundering. Counterfeit currency. Federal Tax evasion. Violation of SEC regulations. Acts of a criminal nature against federally elected officials. Racketeering (RICO) but that is only in the case of interstate criminal acts. And of course crimes committed on federal lands. Certain civil rights statutes are also federal

All other laws are the responsibility of the respective states.
I have seen throughout this thread one common refrain. Liberals grasping at straws in an attempt to rationalize their belief that the federal government is all knowing and all powerful. They want to believe this because they look to the federal government for all of their answers and in some cases their very existence they believe is at the pleasure of the federal government. These people view themselves not as citizens bu
t as subjects

So how do you explain this?

The federal government's power to legislate against criminal acts is not limited to "across state lines." It's just that, as a matter of convention, states will usually hold preference for acts that violate both state and federal law.

Washington, D.C. and the territories administered by the United States. Practical obstacles include: prosecutor's preference for their state courts, and subject matter jurisdiction.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Washington, D.C. and the territories administered by the United States.

That would be a very bad explanation, because the statute applies to all areas of the US, not just territories outside of state limits.