Which States will follow?

[indago]

http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

Oklahoma State House of Representatives - House Votes

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You haven't been paying attention, the democrats have used the Commerce clause to claim almost every new law or edict is legal. They have the support of people like Jillian and others to back them up.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

Oklahoma State House of Representatives - House Votes

Wow. Balls. No other states are going to follow suit. The Supreme Court will just rule it unconstitutional and send the Union Army to invade. Where have you been?

 

[ReillyT]

You haven't been paying attention, the democrats have used the Commerce clause to claim almost every new law or edict is legal. They have the support of people like Jillian and others to back them up.

Not just the Democrats. The Republicans use it when it suits them. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Bush administration convinced the conservative justices of the Court that the Commerce Clause allows federal law enforcement officials to arrest and prosecute Californians who use marijuana for medical purposes as provided by state law. Apparently, the Commerce Clause in the hands of the Republicans prevents unlawful marijuana use. Fair enough, the Democrats used it to stop segregation and enact basic civil rights. Everyone has their priorities.

 

[Gunny]

You haven't been paying attention, the democrats have used the Commerce clause to claim almost every new law or edict is legal. They have the support of people like Jillian and others to back them up.

The fact is, this a threat to US government control. I bet they can get just as bipartisan about this as they do when a third party tries to run for President or the Bill contains a pay raise for Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not just the Democrats. The Republicans use it when it suits them. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Bush administration convinced the conservative justices of the Court that the Commerce Clause allows federal law enforcement officials to arrest and prosecute Californians who use marijuana for medical purposes as provided by state law. Apparently, the Commerce Clause in the hands of the Republicans prevents unlawful marijuana use. Fair enough, the Democrats used it to stop segregation and enact basic civil rights. Everyone has their priorities.

Hate to break it to ya but drug laws ARE covered by the US Government. What is and is not legal is a proper function of the US Government. Unless you think drug companies can now manufacture and sell any drug they want inside a state because they do not "sell" it outside the State.

Designer drugs would then be legal in every state until said state passed a new law.

 

[ReillyT]

Hate to break it to ya but drug laws ARE covered by the US Government. What is and is not legal is a proper function of the US Government. Unless you think drug companies can now manufacture and sell any drug they want inside a state because they do not "sell" it outside the State.

Designer drugs would then be legal in every state until said state passed a new law.

The case had nothing to do with pharmaceuticals. It had to do with the use of marijuana and its legality as a pain medication within the state of California. The findings of the case mean that the federal government can arrest and prosecute sellers and users even if the production, sale and use occur only within one state. The commerce in question was only intrastate, not interstate, but the USSC (in this case, the conservative wing, although the liberal wing has applied the CC in the same fashion elsewhere) determined that the federal government could nonetheless regulate it because it might have indirect impacts on interstate commerce. They used exactly the same rationale they have been using to expand the federal government for years. Both the left and right wings of the court use the CC when convenient to expand government power.

 

[indago]

Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me

 

[Gunny]

The case had nothing to do with pharmaceuticals. It had to do with the use of marijuana and its legality as a pain medication within the state of California. The findings of the case mean that the federal government can arrest and prosecute sellers and users even if the production, sale and use occur only within one state. The commerce in question was only intrastate, not interstate, but the USSC (in this case, the conservative wing, although the liberal wing has applied the CC in the same fashion elsewhere) determined that the federal government could nonetheless regulate it because it might have indirect impacts on interstate commerce. They used exactly the same rationale they have been using to expand the federal government for years. Both the left and right wings of the court use the CC when convenient to expand government power.

What the Federal government is doing is wrong.

 

[ReillyT]

What the Federal government is doing is wrong.

I admit that I find the expansion of federal power at the expense of the states problematic. Unfortunately, it appears to be a trend of roughly 200 years and I doubt it will reverse any time in the near future.

 

[editec]

Both the left and right wings of the court use the CC when convenient to expand government power.

Spot on.

It might help if we stop imagining that the Demcoratic and Republican parties are really different sides.

The leaderships of both parties are really both on the same team...the insiders party


Perhaps it would help to think of them more like good cop/bad cop.

Depending on which cop you happen to think is the good one or the bad one, you'll throw your trust and support to that one, and they know that.

That is exactly why we have a LOT of social issues where the difference in the parties is fairly clear...so we will give one party or the other our support.

But as to issues that really matter to the masters of this uinverse ( herein refered to as MOTU) basically economic issues, the supposed two parties are apt to be in bed together regardless of their photo-op and sound byte posturing.