User Panel
[#1]
Quoted:
Well said, that is why this lawsuit is a good idea. It will force the fed govs hand and make the US Supreme court make a ruling. This will set precedent for many other state rights issues. States have been controlled many times by US Supreme Court rulings where they have made laws less strict and the federal government has made rulings to the states that those laws are unconstitutional. The current administration choosing which laws they will and won't enforce is anarchy. I look forward to the ruling on this one. I would think the Supreme Court would have to rule that the states that have legalized Marijuana is unconstitutional since it is illegal federally. If the Supreme Court rules the states marijuana legalization as constitutional, then hold on it is going to be wide open for many, many other things. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I view the Feds not enforcing drug laws the same as not enforcing immigration laws. If we allow the federal government to cherry pick what laws the want to ignore or enforce then the laws and the Constitution will become worthless. Congress needs to change the law, the Administration shouldn't be telling law enforcement to selectively ignore established law as a work around. Wouldn't it be hypocritical for one to be against Obama's actions on immigration yet support his actions on marijuana? It's the same tactic, if he has the power to ignore one law they can ignore any of them. I'm pro-legalization but I also support these states trying to make the Feds do the job they are obligated and funded to do. Well said, that is why this lawsuit is a good idea. It will force the fed govs hand and make the US Supreme court make a ruling. This will set precedent for many other state rights issues. States have been controlled many times by US Supreme Court rulings where they have made laws less strict and the federal government has made rulings to the states that those laws are unconstitutional. The current administration choosing which laws they will and won't enforce is anarchy. I look forward to the ruling on this one. I would think the Supreme Court would have to rule that the states that have legalized Marijuana is unconstitutional since it is illegal federally. If the Supreme Court rules the states marijuana legalization as constitutional, then hold on it is going to be wide open for many, many other things. I quit. |
|
[#2]
Quoted:
Haven't heard anything out of my county. It's not like anyone west of Grand Island has any pull in Lincoln. Unicameral setup sucks. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The sob stories from all the western NE sheriffs have been hilarious guess they can dry their tears with new MRAPs or something Haven't heard anything out of my county. It's not like anyone west of Grand Island has any pull in Lincoln. Unicameral setup sucks. Actually, we're not sure anybody or anything lives past Grand Island! |
|
[#3]
Quoted:
It most definitely has merit. See my previous post if you need it explained to you. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have to agree with you. It is not Nebraska nor Oklahoma's business how Colorado does its internal laws and its not Colorado's problem if they can't handle their own citizens. Anyone who thinks the commerce clause applies is a moron. So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? Just like Virgina is not responsible for New York's gun laws, Colorado is not responsible for Nebraska's drug laws. You sound exactly like Bloomburg and Mayors Against Guns. I gotta agree, the lawsuit has zero merit. It most definitely has merit. See my previous post if you need it explained to you. No it does not. Not Constitutionally. And what evil other things? Full auto? 30 round mags? |
|
[#4]
Quoted:
As a father I'm torn between the legalization of MJ, and the true dangers that exist when it is legalized. I know it is a great drug for many health issues, that dangerous drugs are often prescribed for. But, legalization in its current form is abusive, and does nothing to regulate the drug in a manner which avoids such abuses by those that simply want to avoid the legal consequences of possession. These two states I believe are simply trying to protect their borders from a massive infusion of legalized, illegally obtained marijuana. I've seen how easy it is to get the drug in Colorado, and the increase of school age kids smoking it, because it's easier to obtain now via illegal methods; ie stealing a little of their parents legal weed, legal buyers selling it, etc... I'm truly torn, I love cutting the head off of the cartels (which legalization won't do). I'm for legitimate use for those with health afflictions. I just hate the massive abuses by xbox commando's, thugs, hippies, and the like. I just hate that it's easier for kids to get, which has been proven in California, Washington, and Colorado. Grammar Nazi's be damned, I didn't spell or grammar check it for mistakes. View Quote Ask yourself "who am I to tell someone that they may not possess and use something which can be used responsibility, without violating others' rights?" There's your answer.* *I was talking about AR-15s w/ 30 rd. mags, of course. |
|
[#5]
Quoted:
... So a bunch of neckbeards want to toke up.... fuck it. Legalize it and get it over with. Stupid marijuana laws make my job harder as a cop. Why the fuck are we so worried about marijuana when a shit ton of folks are raging alcoholics? I say legalize weed... I smoke tobacco and folks are jumping my shit about that... View Quote Here, here. |
|
[#6]
Quoted: No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye.
|
|
[#7]
Quoted:
So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, you Republican hypocrite fuckwads. That big, out of control Federal Government is a bad thing, until you can swing it like a weapon when another state does something you don't like, within their own borders. It's rare I truly side with the liberals, but right here is some weapons-grade bullshit from the conservatives. Has either of these states ever proposed a "fuck you" over Federal gun grabbing? Me thinks they probably have on that, or some other issue. http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2014/12/18/us--marijuana-lawsuit.html LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska and Oklahoma are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare Colorado's legalization of marijuana unconstitutional.Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning announced Thursday that the states are seeking a court order to prevent Colorado from enforcing a measure that was approved by voters in 2012. Bruning says Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is also a party to the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that Colorado's Amendment 64 runs afoul of federal law. I have to agree with you. It is not Nebraska nor Oklahoma's business how Colorado does its internal laws and its not Colorado's problem if they can't handle their own citizens. Anyone who thinks the commerce clause applies is a moron. So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? They aren't stopping Nebraska from enforcing our laws. The statists are just mad that Colorado doesn't have a law that they think everyone should have. The unicameral should just make it illegal to bring pot into the state. |
|
[#8]
Quoted:
They aren't stopping Nebraska from enforcing our laws. The statists are just mad that Colorado doesn't have a law that they think everyone should have. The unicameral should just make it illegal to bring pot into the state. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, you Republican hypocrite fuckwads. That big, out of control Federal Government is a bad thing, until you can swing it like a weapon when another state does something you don't like, within their own borders. It's rare I truly side with the liberals, but right here is some weapons-grade bullshit from the conservatives. Has either of these states ever proposed a "fuck you" over Federal gun grabbing? Me thinks they probably have on that, or some other issue. http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2014/12/18/us--marijuana-lawsuit.html LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska and Oklahoma are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare Colorado's legalization of marijuana unconstitutional.Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning announced Thursday that the states are seeking a court order to prevent Colorado from enforcing a measure that was approved by voters in 2012. Bruning says Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is also a party to the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that Colorado's Amendment 64 runs afoul of federal law. I have to agree with you. It is not Nebraska nor Oklahoma's business how Colorado does its internal laws and its not Colorado's problem if they can't handle their own citizens. Anyone who thinks the commerce clause applies is a moron. So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? They aren't stopping Nebraska from enforcing our laws. The statists are just mad that Colorado doesn't have a law that they think everyone should have. The unicameral should just make it illegal to bring pot into the state. Oh wait |
|
[#9]
Quoted:
Ask yourself "who am I to tell someone that they may not possess and use something which can be used responsibility, without violating others' rights?" There's your answer.* *I was talking about AR-15s w/ 30 rd. mags, of course. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
As a father I'm torn between the legalization of MJ, and the true dangers that exist when it is legalized. I know it is a great drug for many health issues, that dangerous drugs are often prescribed for. But, legalization in its current form is abusive, and does nothing to regulate the drug in a manner which avoids such abuses by those that simply want to avoid the legal consequences of possession. These two states I believe are simply trying to protect their borders from a massive infusion of legalized, illegally obtained marijuana. I've seen how easy it is to get the drug in Colorado, and the increase of school age kids smoking it, because it's easier to obtain now via illegal methods; ie stealing a little of their parents legal weed, legal buyers selling it, etc... I'm truly torn, I love cutting the head off of the cartels (which legalization won't do). I'm for legitimate use for those with health afflictions. I just hate the massive abuses by xbox commando's, thugs, hippies, and the like. I just hate that it's easier for kids to get, which has been proven in California, Washington, and Colorado. Grammar Nazi's be damned, I didn't spell or grammar check it for mistakes. Ask yourself "who am I to tell someone that they may not possess and use something which can be used responsibility, without violating others' rights?" There's your answer.* *I was talking about AR-15s w/ 30 rd. mags, of course. That is a great argument.I've never thought about it that way before. Nice work. |
|
[#10]
Quoted: Just like Virgina is not responsible for New York's gun laws, Colorado is not responsible for Nebraska's drug laws. You sound exactly like Bloomburg and Mayors Against Guns. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh, you Republican hypocrite fuckwads. That big, out of control Federal Government is a bad thing, until you can swing it like a weapon when another state does something you don't like, within their own borders. It's rare I truly side with the liberals, but right here is some weapons-grade bullshit from the conservatives. Has either of these states ever proposed a "fuck you" over Federal gun grabbing? Me thinks they probably have on that, or some other issue. http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2014/12/18/us--marijuana-lawsuit.html LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska and Oklahoma are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare Colorado's legalization of marijuana unconstitutional.Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning announced Thursday that the states are seeking a court order to prevent Colorado from enforcing a measure that was approved by voters in 2012. Bruning says Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is also a party to the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that Colorado's Amendment 64 runs afoul of federal law. I have to agree with you. It is not Nebraska nor Oklahoma's business how Colorado does its internal laws and its not Colorado's problem if they can't handle their own citizens. Anyone who thinks the commerce clause applies is a moron. So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? Just like Virgina is not responsible for New York's gun laws, Colorado is not responsible for Nebraska's drug laws. You sound exactly like Bloomburg and Mayors Against Guns. Nebraska and Oklahoma are asking the feds to enforce their existing laws, guns aren't illegal at the federal level. If the feds would make pot legal Nebraska and Oklahoma wouldn't have a leg to stand on, just like Bloomburg and mayors against guns. |
|
[#11]
Quoted: The lawsuit is seeking to make Colorado comply with federal law (The Controlled Substances Act of 1970). It is established precedent that federal law trumps state law. They are not asking CO to comply with OK or NE law, the lawsuit is saying CO must comply with federal law. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. |
|
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't stopping Nebraska from enforcing our laws. The statists are just mad that Colorado doesn't have a law that they think everyone should have. The unicameral should just make it illegal to bring pot into the state. Oh wait What???? You mean it's already illegal? This is fucking anarchy. I'm going to get a glass of bourbon, this shit better be straightened out when I get back. |
|
[#13]
Quoted:
The lawsuit is seeking to make Colorado comply with federal law (The Controlled Substances Act of 1970). It is established precedent that federal law trumps state law. They are not asking CO to comply with OK or NE law, the lawsuit is saying CO must comply with federal law. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. Your failure is the assumption that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to dictate what anyone consumes or purchases. |
|
[#14]
Quoted:
The complaint alleges that Colorado's Amendment 64 runs afoul of federal law. View Quote Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to dictate what a citizen consumes? And yes, you still sound like Bloomberg. I assume by your statement you would support CA suing AZ if AZ rejected the NFA and allowed new MG manufacture and sale in state without the registry? |
|
[#15]
Quoted: Your failure is the assumption that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to dictate what anyone consumes or purchases. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. Your failure is the assumption that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to dictate what anyone consumes or purchases. Are we arguing the way things are or the way things should be? I side with states rights, but that isn't the way things are. |
|
[#16]
Quoted:
Do you think any Republicans here would cheer California if they demanded the Feds do something about their neighbor's lax gun laws? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If a state passed a law allowing full auto weapons or silencers, do you think the feds would let that one stand? Do you think any Republicans here would cheer California if they demanded the Feds do something about their neighbor's lax gun laws? Now that is a great example. I do not often agree with your views, but you are 100% right this time. |
|
[#17]
Quoted: Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. |
|
[#19]
Quoted: Your failure is the assumption that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to dictate what anyone consumes or purchases. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. Your failure is the assumption that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to dictate what anyone consumes or purchases. The Supreme Court ruled on this again in 2005. I don't agree with it but it is the law of the land. We probably think things should be a similar way, that's not what the law and precedent say however.
|
|
[#20]
Quoted:
So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? View Quote Why the fuck does Oklahoma care at all? They don't even border Colorado. Bunch of fucking busy bodies. I guess it's not a huge surprise coming from the state that just legalized tattoo parlors in 2006. ETA: Goddamned panhandle. |
|
[#21]
Quoted: Why the fuck does Oklahoma care at all? The don't even border Colorado. Bunch of fucking busy bodies. I guess it's not a huge surprise coming from the state that just legalized tattoo parlors in 2006. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? Why the fuck does Oklahoma care at all? The don't even border Colorado. Bunch of fucking busy bodies. I guess it's not a huge surprise coming from the state that just legalized tattoo parlors in 2006. You support drugs and tattoos? Our country is doomed |
|
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? Why the fuck does Oklahoma care at all? They don't even border Colorado. Bunch of fucking busy bodies. I guess it's not a huge surprise coming from the state that just legalized tattoo parlors in 2006. http://i.imgur.com/cssDUOh.png Lol. Oops. |
|
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? Why the fuck does Oklahoma care at all? They don't even border Colorado. Bunch of fucking busy bodies. I guess it's not a huge surprise coming from the state that just legalized tattoo parlors in 2006. http://i.imgur.com/cssDUOh.png LMAO I used OK to avoid NMSP when hauling a d-4 with blade with a 3/4 ton truck from TX the panhandle is barren |
|
[#25]
|
|
[#26]
Mary Falin. I'm sure it's because JEESUUSS hates weed.
That woman is the perfect example of the unchristian Christian. |
|
[#27]
I stepped on 3 pot needles while out pheasant hunting today and yesterday. All of them had the CU Buffalo embroidered on them in hemp.
I'm at Jon Bruning's house being quarantined right now. I never saw it coming. Please stop the madness. |
|
[#29]
Quoted:
No it does not. Not Constitutionally. And what evil other things? Full auto? 30 round mags? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I gotta agree, the lawsuit has zero merit. It most definitely has merit. See my previous post if you need it explained to you. No it does not. Not Constitutionally. And what evil other things? Full auto? 30 round mags? I suggest you study up on case law concerning state law vs. federal law and the rulings that have been made where the US Supreme Court has set precedence that states laws cannot be less restrictive than federal law. Legalizing Marijuana by individual states is most definitely less restrictive than federal law. |
|
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So Nebraska/Oklahoma is supposed to turn a blind eye and not enforce their own laws? Why should Nebraska and Oklahoma have to bear the expense of going after illegal drugs coming across the Colorado border? Why the fuck does Oklahoma care at all? They don't even border Colorado. Bunch of fucking busy bodies. I guess it's not a huge surprise coming from the state that just legalized tattoo parlors in 2006. http://i.imgur.com/cssDUOh.png Lol. Oops. |
|
[#32]
Quoted:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court ruled on this again in 2005. I don't agree with it but it is the law of the land. We probably think things should be a similar way, that's not what the law and precedent say however. View Quote SCOTUS has been wrong before. See Dred Scott and Jim Crow. |
|
[#33]
|
|
[#35]
Quoted:
I suggest you study up on case law concerning state law vs. federal law and the rulings that have been made where the US Supreme Court has set precedence that states laws cannot be less restrictive than federal law. Legalizing Marijuana by individual states is most definitely less restrictive than federal law. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I gotta agree, the lawsuit has zero merit. It most definitely has merit. See my previous post if you need it explained to you. No it does not. Not Constitutionally. And what evil other things? Full auto? 30 round mags? I suggest you study up on case law concerning state law vs. federal law and the rulings that have been made where the US Supreme Court has set precedence that states laws cannot be less restrictive than federal law. Legalizing Marijuana by individual states is most definitely less restrictive than federal law. I know the law and precidents. However, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to make such laws in the first place. |
|
[#36]
Quoted:
I stepped on 3 pot needles while out pheasant hunting today and yesterday. All of them had the CU Buffalo embroidered on them in hemp. I'm at Jon Bruning's house being quarantined right now. I never saw it coming. Please stop the madness. View Quote I am sorry that drug free NE has been invaded by CO The heartland was perfect before and could leave Anhydrous Ammonia unlocked They had no drug problems before CO legalized madness Mexintion/ GI/ Oma/Lin were crime free utopias that had never seen Satan's spinach or Lucifer's lettuce and Beelzebub's Bok Choi before CO |
|
[#37]
Quoted: Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. Because potato. |
|
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I view the Feds not enforcing drug laws the same as not enforcing immigration laws. If we allow the federal government to cherry pick what laws the want to ignore or enforce then the laws and the Constitution will become worthless. Congress needs to change the law, the Administration shouldn't be telling law enforcement to selectively ignore established law as a work around. Wouldn't it be hypocritical for one to be against Obama's actions on immigration yet support his actions on marijuana? It's the same tactic, if he has the power to ignore one law they can ignore any of them. I'm pro-legalization but I also support these states trying to make the Feds do the job they are obligated and funded to do. Well said, that is why this lawsuit is a good idea. It will force the fed govs hand and make the US Supreme court make a ruling. This will set precedent for many other state rights issues. States have been controlled many times by US Supreme Court rulings where they have made laws less strict and the federal government has made rulings to the states that those laws are unconstitutional. The current administration choosing which laws they will and won't enforce is anarchy. I look forward to the ruling on this one. I would think the Supreme Court would have to rule that the states that have legalized Marijuana is unconstitutional since it is illegal federally. If the Supreme Court rules the states marijuana legalization as constitutional, then hold on it is going to be wide open for many, many other things. I quit. Why? This isn't civics, this is basic Constitutional Law 101, though it seems that there are several that do not understand state law vs. federal law. |
|
[#39]
Quoted: SCOTUS has been wrong before. See Dred Scott and Jim Crow. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court ruled on this again in 2005. I don't agree with it but it is the law of the land. We probably think things should be a similar way, that's not what the law and precedent say however. SCOTUS has been wrong before. See Dred Scott and Jim Crow. I'm not arguing right vs. wrong, just stating the way things currently are. The Supreme Court (all the liberals at the time plus Scalia and Kennedy) has specifically ruled that the federal government has the power to regulate marijuana (including medicinal) regardless of state law. The federal law says production and distribution are illegal. That's why this lawsuit has merit, whether we agree with it or not, the courts and law books are pretty clear on the matter.
|
|
[#40]
Quoted:
I am sorry that drug free NE has been invaded by CO The heartland was perfect before and could leave Anhydrous Ammonia unlocked They had no drug problems before CO legalized madness Mexintion/ GI/ Oma/Lin were crime free utopias that had never seen Satan's spinach or Lucifer's lettuce and Beelzebub's Bok Choi before CO View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I stepped on 3 pot needles while out pheasant hunting today and yesterday. All of them had the CU Buffalo embroidered on them in hemp. I'm at Jon Bruning's house being quarantined right now. I never saw it coming. Please stop the madness. I am sorry that drug free NE has been invaded by CO The heartland was perfect before and could leave Anhydrous Ammonia unlocked They had no drug problems before CO legalized madness Mexintion/ GI/ Oma/Lin were crime free utopias that had never seen Satan's spinach or Lucifer's lettuce and Beelzebub's Bok Choi before CO Fuckin' hippie drug dealers. I can't wait to Breckenridge in Feb and scoff at all the homeless druggy, pothead libertarians. |
|
[#41]
Quoted:
Fuckin' hippie drug dealers. I can't wait to Breckenridge in Feb and scoff at all the homeless druggy, pothead libertarians. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I stepped on 3 pot needles while out pheasant hunting today and yesterday. All of them had the CU Buffalo embroidered on them in hemp. I'm at Jon Bruning's house being quarantined right now. I never saw it coming. Please stop the madness. I am sorry that drug free NE has been invaded by CO The heartland was perfect before and could leave Anhydrous Ammonia unlocked They had no drug problems before CO legalized madness Mexintion/ GI/ Oma/Lin were crime free utopias that had never seen Satan's spinach or Lucifer's lettuce and Beelzebub's Bok Choi before CO Fuckin' hippie drug dealers. I can't wait to Breckenridge in Feb and scoff at all the homeless druggy, pothead libertarians. Breckenridge? Now that's just a death sentence. I hear they have snow and weed up there. |
|
[#42]
Pretty much the only thing on Oklahoma government's radar is gays, drugs, and ten commandment statues. It's really maddening sometimes.
|
|
[#43]
Quoted:
Breckenridge? Now that's just a death sentence. I hear they have snow and weed up there. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I stepped on 3 pot needles while out pheasant hunting today and yesterday. All of them had the CU Buffalo embroidered on them in hemp. I'm at Jon Bruning's house being quarantined right now. I never saw it coming. Please stop the madness. I am sorry that drug free NE has been invaded by CO The heartland was perfect before and could leave Anhydrous Ammonia unlocked They had no drug problems before CO legalized madness Mexintion/ GI/ Oma/Lin were crime free utopias that had never seen Satan's spinach or Lucifer's lettuce and Beelzebub's Bok Choi before CO Fuckin' hippie drug dealers. I can't wait to Breckenridge in Feb and scoff at all the homeless druggy, pothead libertarians. Breckenridge? Now that's just a death sentence. I hear they have snow and weed up there. I think Breck does not allow rec Alma is the closest but I don't know for a fact don't smoke Satan's Spinach |
|
[#44]
|
|
[#45]
|
|
[#46]
Quoted:
Alma...now that's an interesting town. Also rec is GTG in Breck. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Breck does not allow rec Alma is the closest but I don't know for a fact don't smoke Satan's Spinach Alma...now that's an interesting town. Also rec is GTG in Breck. Was not aware Be sure to shop at AL-mart |
|
[#47]
Quoted:
Alma...now that's an interesting town. Also rec is GTG in Breck. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Breck does not allow rec Alma is the closest but I don't know for a fact don't smoke Satan's Spinach Alma...now that's an interesting town. Also rec is GTG in Breck. I didn't see any weed in Breck last year, hell, I didn't see any in Boulder this summer, with the exception of a chick and a dude sitting on a bridge. You fuckers are all so stoned you can't even inject weed out in the open like they do in Omaha. |
|
[#48]
Quoted:
Why? This isn't civics, this is basic Constitutional Law 101, though it seems that there are several that do not understand state law vs. federal law. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I view the Feds not enforcing drug laws the same as not enforcing immigration laws. If we allow the federal government to cherry pick what laws the want to ignore or enforce then the laws and the Constitution will become worthless. Congress needs to change the law, the Administration shouldn't be telling law enforcement to selectively ignore established law as a work around. Wouldn't it be hypocritical for one to be against Obama's actions on immigration yet support his actions on marijuana? It's the same tactic, if he has the power to ignore one law they can ignore any of them. I'm pro-legalization but I also support these states trying to make the Feds do the job they are obligated and funded to do. Well said, that is why this lawsuit is a good idea. It will force the fed govs hand and make the US Supreme court make a ruling. This will set precedent for many other state rights issues. States have been controlled many times by US Supreme Court rulings where they have made laws less strict and the federal government has made rulings to the states that those laws are unconstitutional. The current administration choosing which laws they will and won't enforce is anarchy. I look forward to the ruling on this one. I would think the Supreme Court would have to rule that the states that have legalized Marijuana is unconstitutional since it is illegal federally. If the Supreme Court rules the states marijuana legalization as constitutional, then hold on it is going to be wide open for many, many other things. I quit. Why? This isn't civics, this is basic Constitutional Law 101, though it seems that there are several that do not understand state law vs. federal law. I'm not sure how I can explain it to you or anyone else who fails to understand American Federalism on such a basic and necessary level. There is no constitutional requirement for any State to pass a law mirroring a Federal law. I don't know where you or anyone else are reading that, but it is in no copy of the Constitution I've ever read. The issue of the Federal government enforcing it's OWN laws has exactly NOTHING to do with whether any particular State has equivalent laws. I don't know how plainer I can say it. If you want to complain about the Feds not enforcing Federal law, fine. But to argue that the States have some kind of duty to ban whatever the Federal government bans is patently idiotic and completely misses the entire POINT of having States or a Federal system in the first place. |
|
[#49]
Quoted: Haven't heard anything out of my county. It's not like anyone west of Grand Island has any pull in Lincoln. Unicameral setup sucks. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The sob stories from all the western NE sheriffs have been hilarious guess they can dry their tears with new MRAPs or something Haven't heard anything out of my county. It's not like anyone west of Grand Island has any pull in Lincoln. Unicameral setup sucks. http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/with-pot-legal-in-colorado-western-nebraska-police-appeal-for/article_d8b5a84a-9449-5439-9e25-e953addc72f7.html |
|
[#50]
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.