Yeah, I was a little disappointed that he didn't take more shit over that during the election. The media really went out of their way to hush that up.

This has me pissed, Im throwing another $20 to http://www.leap.cc/

If the USSC had ruled that there existed NO individual right to keep and bear arms, would you agree with them solely because the USC says that they have the final say?  Even though you know for a fact, with 100% certainty that they are wrong?  Even though you know that they didn't rule based on the letter of the law or the intent of the framers, but rather on their own visions of the way they think society should be?

That seems damn close to ceding power to the Judiciary to rewrite the very document that gave it existence.

Cue pics of Bush and Clinton.

All of the last three presidents have admitted to at LEAST doing pot.







(oh,  and fbho)

Well you've managed to quote from the constitution  [golf clap]...while completely ignoring the heart of the argument,"Does the fed gov have the power to regulate marijuana under the ICC?"  The fed gov thinks it does, whether or not it does under the decision from Lopez is still open for debate.  I just don't think the feds want that fight right now.





Yet it's still readily available and the trade is doing well.  I'm sure they've done some raids but they haven't shut it down and they could if they wanted to.  Again I don't believe the Feds want that fight with the current USSC.

Bless his heart.

Of course I wouldn't agree with them.  I also wouldn't suddenly try to live in the perverse arfGD world where State's Rights/the Constitution/Founding Fathers/Liberty/Conservative were all simplistic one (or two) word arguments that have no internal contradictions in the real world.

No doubt.

Hey, UN... MYOB.

Non pothead, staunch legalization supporter.

What am I ignoring?

THIS X INFINITY

Fuck dude, pick something we can argue about.

Or not.  I'm sick of arguing with people I agree with on most things.

I just want to be free. That use to be an American virtue.  In fact, it might have been the only TRUE American virtue, individual liberty.  






















 

Holy shit, I don't think I've ever agreed so strongly with a post I've seen on this site (that didn't involve bacon).

We let all the other countries produce Ll the drugs they want and there worried about weed? The un can go Fuck themselves. Hell who was it cuba that had the nuts to say that we should pay them for all the drugs of there we seize commin in. Hillary and the un can f off.

Never mind.....

This.



This.



And last, but certainly not least, this.

The people voted to change state law.  The federal law stands.  ATF.  Anyone engaged with assets should not forget those letters - Always Think Forfeiture.
 

This x 100000000000000000000

If everyone in our country thought like this we would have zero problems.

Bravo sir, bravo.

Fuck the UN.

As soon as they start cracking down on the opium coming out of Afghanistan, I'll give a shit what the UN thinks should be happening here.
 

Oh you want something?




 

I'll consider giving the slightest bit of fuck about what the UN says when they start consistently condemning and/or taking action against the many countries that feel it should be legal to kill a woman for "dishonoring" her family.

ETA:  I won't necessarily give a fuck at that point, but I'll consider it.

This.
And fuck the UN.

Meanwhile in the middle east, someone legally cut off a young girl's clitoris and the UN says we should respect their culture.

I'll never consider it.  The last thing I want to see is another tier on the government pyramid of power, the Federal tier is bad enough.  I want the lowest level on that pyramid, the individual, to have most of the power, with less and less "authority" rising up through all the levels of government.  Government is NOT your friend.  That's why you need to keep it close.  




 

I have no problem with the original intent of the UN:  to provide a forum for the worlds governments to mediate disputes and work out treaties.  You'll never see me support giving them the authority to bypass the constitutional systems for enacting laws and settling internal disputes of any nation.  The problem is that they seem to spend more time bitching and moaning about the internal actions of their less popular members than they do mediating international problems.  

I agree with you in that I believe that power is best distributed from the bottom up, and that there needs to be a stronger focus in this country (and others) on individual liberties and responsibility.

Tell the UN to mind their own goddamn business!
 

Legalize all drugs.   Just one caveat:  Usage of defined hazardous recreational drugs makes you ineligible for publicly funded treatment

for any condition arising from the usage of those drugs, including injuries acquired while stoned.    And you are liable for your actions while

in that altered state of mind.   Being stoned shall not be a defense against criminal charges.



The war on drugs is nothing but a long-term employment scam.  A lot of people make their living providing goods and services in support

of this endless "war" which is about nothing but money.





CJ

Yup.  And they were wrong.  If the USSC states 2 + 2 = 3 will you accept it as true?

If the national government legislates in an area in which it is granted the power to legislate, then the national law trumps the State law to the extent that they conflict with one another.  The growth, possession, or consumption of a plant by an individual person, or even intrastate trade in such a plant, is not something the Constitution grants the national government the power to controul.  When it comes to the commerce clause, it is pretty clear that the meaning and intent of the provision was to break down interstate barriers to trade (which was an issue that led to the adoption of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation in the first place), not to enable the establishment of a mild totalitarian state.

The Supreme Court has assumed powers that extend well beyond any granted to them by the constitution; they essentially amend the constitution and create public policy much of the time when they issue rulings, rather than simply rendering judgement.  Quite a few justices have even stated that they don't really care much what the constitution says as long as their end is achieved.  That is the leading judicial activist mantra: ends-oriented rulings.  The judiciary has usurped power and has used it to increase the power of the national government.  Looking to the modern courts for much of anything sound is foolish.  

And the issue of federalism is pretty close to a black and white issue when it comes to conservatism.  Conservatism with little variance has as a movement supported federalism or something similar to federalism, as well as the principle of subsidiarity.  In that context it's pretty clear cut that this is a matter that should be up to each State to decide for itself (or even lower levels if the State constitution is itself federal); the Constitution leaves the police powers entirely in the hands of the States, where they were before the Constitution was ratified.

They have no fucking business suggesting or demanding anything........Hey UN fuck off!



 

That, and the message that individuals can be responsible for their own choices is apparently the wrong one.

 

The UN has always been in favour of centralization, collectivization, and totalitarian government (i.e., government that regulates one's life).  The principles of the UN are anti-thetical to our founding principles of government, and the best in the Western political tradition.

My God, try to show that the issue isn;t so cut and dry and everyone thinks you have stated a position.  When the held did I suggest I agreed with anything the court said?

The simple thing is, one freakin' day on this board should be enough to get an idea of the breadth of conservative thinking in the US, and the various values that come into conflict on many issues.  Yet, despite this, we still have the same flippant and inane rhetoric tossed about.  Is belief in rule of law "liberal" or "conservative?"

Where in the Constitution is the Federal Govt given the authority to regulate drugs? Nowhere. The Constitution is a document that enumerates powers to the government, any power not given to the Federal govt under the constitution is, by default, unconstitutional.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States (Federal Govt) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why is it that we had to create the 18th Amendment so the Federal govt could legally ban alcohol during the prohibition era? Why didn't they arbitrarily ban alcohol in the same manner that drugs have arbitrarily been banned today? At least during the prohibition era they had enough regard for the constitution to amendment it when they gave the govt a new power.



Here is an amendment that many people turn a blind eye to.

9th amendment : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Oh, and don't pretend you are caring about the rule of law. There is no rule of law in a government operating outside of its Constitutional powers. If congress made a law banning all guns, would you consider people opposing the ban to be opposing the rule of law even when the law is blatantly illegal?

To further drive this home, here are some quotes from Alexander Hamilton. He was the most authoritarian of the founding fathers. If any founder was in favor of more government, it would be this guy.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton

"No legislative act ... contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton

And in case you decide to take up the General Welfare argument...

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined ... to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison (Father of the Constitution)

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison


These are the guys that came up with the Constitution, I imagine they probably understand it a bit more than a few partisan politicians wearing robes.


Just admit it. You are a statist of a different sort. You think the govt should control what other people do to their own bodies. You have to get over that. If you want to make somebody behave morally, reach out to them and try to help them see the light. You shouldn't count on a Federal ban hammer to solve all of our problems because one day that hammer is going to land on you.

Oh, btw. I don't do drugs, I don't smoke, I don't drink and I am a strong Christian. I abhor things like Gay Marriage and Drugs, but I realize that the Federal govt has NO constitutional authority to regulate them. If you want the feds to ban drugs, push for an amendment to the Constitution. Until then, stop supporting an illegal law.

Negative ghost rider, the Indonesians would not have an issue with raw milk.  Need to get some euro types for that mission and save the 2nd/third worlders for gun confiscation.

The fact that the UN opposes this makes me feel even better about my vote.  Fuck the UN.

Dear UN:

I ain't no doper, but we should tell the UN to go fuck itself.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

They voted for it let em have it.

Fuck the UN!

Even if they one day say something I agree with, fuck the UN.

Agreed, Screw the UN.

Seeing as how I have no problem with the states in question, maybe you should admit you have a reading comprehension issue?  Do you think the people who pushed for the SOMA were "liberals?"  Are all of those who want to legalize or decriminalize marijuana "conservative?"

Cool, but you didn't address the Constitutionality of the Federal laws. You seemed to insinuate in your other post that the Supremacy Clause gave the Fed's the power to ban drugs.

Who wants to take bets on how much money this guy gets paid by various cartels?

Same fear-uncertainty-spread-panic reaction as the MDMA cartels when cheaper, safer, better cathones started to flood the market and bypass their supply lines and starved their organized crime pay structures.

Same thing we'll see from debeers when someone perfects the naturally flawed undetectable man-made diamond.

Fuck the UN, fuck Obama, state's rights, the cake is a lie.

States rights>feds
and fuck the UN
and thanks for slowing multiple answers!

But states rights should supersede the feds so let Colorado do what ever they want

 

Is recognizing that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to "address the Constitutionality of the Federal laws" a "liberal" thing?