Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 12/8/2013 11:49:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/8/2013 11:58:27 PM EST by Qweevox]

DEA, IRS raid Denver-area marijuana businesses

"DENVER – Federal agents raided an unknown number of marijuana dispensaries and growing sites on Thursday in Colorado, confiscating piles of marijuana plants and cartons of cannabis-infused drinks just weeks before the state allows sellers of recreational marijuana to open their doors.


DEA raiding marijuana dispensaries in Puget Sound region



The will of the people doesn't matter. If you don't like a law, work hard to change it, and do!...it still doesn't matter because the government will do what they want anyway.

What's tyranny again?



Link Posted: 12/8/2013 11:53:05 PM EST
One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 11:54:34 PM EST
These guys were not operating in compliance with state law.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 11:54:49 PM EST
Color me surprised.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 11:56:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GrasshopperNOmore:
One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting.
View Quote

The locals are beholden to the Feds for tons of funding, that's not an accident.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:08:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:09:42 AM EST by packingXDs]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
These guys were not operating in compliance with state law.
View Quote

So local LE sent the Feds after them? Or do they get on the radar of the feds for not complying with State law?

ETA:

WAG, but, I assume they are moving weight and making lots of cash. Possibly selling to undercovers?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:15:47 AM EST
It's time to invoke the 10th Amendment and throw these fuckers in jail for not respecting state law
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:17:11 AM EST
Instead of just decriminalizing the plant, as they should have done, they will end up setting up MORE government to regulate it. The bureaucratic apparatuses they are building for marijuana regulation are huge.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:20:09 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By focus8:
It's time to invoke the 10th Amendment and throw these fuckers in jail for not respecting state law
View Quote

I agree. It really doesn't matter what people's personal preferences are regarding the use of intoxicants, "the people have spoken".

They voted and changed the law. In Washington and Colorado marijuana isn't criminal. The federal government is so far out of bounds here. It's time someone checked them.


Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:20:27 AM EST
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
View Quote


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken.



Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:24:22 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken.



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken.




The USC trumps laws the feds have no authority to pass in the first place. Granted nobody gives a shit about Article I, Section 8. The bureaucrats of have spoken.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:27:37 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken

Where are the Feds granted the power they claim? They're the supreme law, in their VERY narrow lanes. They're so far outside that it's ludicrous.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:29:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:30:46 AM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

The USC trumps laws the feds have no authority to pass in the first place. Granted nobody gives a shit about Article I, Section 8. The bureaucrats of have spoken.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken.




The USC trumps laws the feds have no authority to pass in the first place. Granted nobody gives a shit about Article I, Section 8. The bureaucrats of have spoken.


I wonmder if the USC considers the possibility for such a dispute, and declares how they are to be handled?

Oh, yeah, that's right...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:35:19 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


I wonmder if the USC considers the possibility for such a dispute, and declares how they are to be handled?

Oh, yeah, that's right...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken.




The USC trumps laws the feds have no authority to pass in the first place. Granted nobody gives a shit about Article I, Section 8. The bureaucrats of have spoken.


I wonmder if the USC considers the possibility for such a dispute, and declares how they are to be handled?

Oh, yeah, that's right...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.



Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:40:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:41:40 AM EST by Qweevox]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By YGTGYD:


Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By YGTGYD:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

The USC trumps laws the feds have no authority to pass in the first place. Granted nobody gives a shit about Article I, Section 8. The bureaucrats of have spoken.


I wonmder if the USC considers the possibility for such a dispute, and declares how they are to be handled?

Oh, yeah, that's right...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.



Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.

+1

He seems to be having an aha moment.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:41:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:44:53 AM EST by packingXDs]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By YGTGYD:
Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.
View Quote

He is basically stating that 9 men in robes are the end all arbitrator to any constitutional debates. Thus, since they ruled that commerce clause is sufficient to have the Fed in every possible inch of the citizenry lives; its A-OK. Though I suspect he would be singing a different tune if Heller didn't go in our favor.

Bohr_Adam, correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.


ETA:

And if I am correct, your text says "to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What of controversies between citizens and the magical robed men making the decisions?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:52:56 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

He is basically stating that 9 men in robes are the end all arbitrator to any constitutional debates. Thus, since they ruled that commerce clause is sufficient to have the Fed in every possible inch of the citizenry lives; its A-OK. Though I suspect he would be singing a different tune if Heller didn't go in our favor.

Bohr_Adam, correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.


ETA:

And if I am correct, your text says "to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What of controversies between citizens and the magical robed men making the decisions?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By YGTGYD:
Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.

He is basically stating that 9 men in robes are the end all arbitrator to any constitutional debates. Thus, since they ruled that commerce clause is sufficient to have the Fed in every possible inch of the citizenry lives; its A-OK. Though I suspect he would be singing a different tune if Heller didn't go in our favor.

Bohr_Adam, correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.


ETA:

And if I am correct, your text says "to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What of controversies between citizens and the magical robed men making the decisions?

We were sunk the minute the SCOTUS stopped reading the USC and started trying to rewrite it. Why anyone respects them anymore I don't know, fear I guess.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:56:34 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

I agree. It really doesn't matter what people's personal preferences are regarding the use of intoxicants, "the people have spoken".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Originally Posted By focus8:
It's time to invoke the 10th Amendment and throw these fuckers in jail for not respecting state law

I agree. It really doesn't matter what people's personal preferences are regarding the use of intoxicants, "the people have spoken".

They voted and changed the law. In Washington and Colorado marijuana isn't criminal. The federal government is so far out of bounds here. It's time someone checked them.


False.


In Washington State, the idiot dopers all voted to "legalize" weed, and it did not decriminalize it.


To decriminalize it, all that would be needed was to repeal the laws that made it a crime. Anything in Wa that is not illegal, is legal (law on the books to keep judges from making up crimes).

All the law did was reform things. It actually made some acts MORE criminal, and easier to be charged with harsher sentences.


In essence, the bill was a huge FUCK YOU PAY ME to people who smoke weed. The states going to pull 25% tax on legal sales, make bank on licensing, it's going to be ran by the liquor control board, and the threshold for DWI is so low you can hardly smoke at all and drive without risk. Meaning DWI revenue.


The educated smokers are FURIOUS that it passed.



And it's still federally illegal.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:59:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:02:04 AM EST
Did you notice this part?

weeks before the state allows sellers of recreational marijuana to open their doors.
View Quote


But yeah, keep mobying around trying to keep Republicans from voting and trying to sway the easily fooled. Voting does nothing, so stay home, GOP!!!!



Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:04:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
There is still Federal law on the books that say Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, and the Supreme Court has ruled (in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005)) that "medical marijuana" is still a violation of the Controlled Substance Act.

If you don't like the law elect people to Congress that will change the law.
View Quote

They never had the power to enact it to begin with, so what difference does it make?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:15:03 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Did you notice this part?



But yeah, keep mobying around trying to keep Republicans from voting and trying to sway the easily fooled. Voting does nothing, so stay home, GOP!!!!



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Did you notice this part?

weeks before the state allows sellers of recreational marijuana to open their doors.


But yeah, keep mobying around trying to keep Republicans from voting and trying to sway the easily fooled. Voting does nothing, so stay home, GOP!!!!




Did you miss the part where there are legal (medical) dispensaries that are operational in the state? But don't let that stop you from going on a moby/anti-libertarian/vote the GOP at all cost rant. Fill your quota good sir.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:17:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 1:19:13 AM EST by RDak]
Oh heck, there are better examples than this marijuana raid before it is legal of voting results not being followed.

Many court decisions have, for all intents and purposes, reversed the results of a vote.

This has happened ALOT over the decades.

There is usually a ruling that what was voted for is unconstitutional in quite a few instances over our history.

Doesn't mean tyranny necessarily.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:20:20 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

....................

Did you miss the part where there are legal (medical) dispensaries that are operational in the state? But don't let that stop you from going on a moby/anti-libertarian/vote the GOP at all cost rant. Fill your quota good sir.
View Quote


There will ALWAYS be Feds who will fight State level legalization IMHO.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:21:24 AM EST
He's saying two things.

1) Federal laws trumps state law according to the Constitution.
2) the judiciary has the power to decide cases where there is a supposed conflict between federal law and the Constitution.

Until a judge says federal drug laws are unconstitutional, federal law trumps state law.


Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:31:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dino:
He's saying two things.

1) Federal laws trumps state law according to the Constitution.
2) the judiciary has the power to decide cases where there is a supposed conflict between federal law and the Constitution.

Until a judge says federal drug laws are unconstitutional, federal law trumps state law.
View Quote

Well as the courts stopped following the USC and just ruling however the fuck they want, what authority do they really hold anymore?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:33:24 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:


There will ALWAYS be Feds who will fight State level legalization IMHO.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

....................

Did you miss the part where there are legal (medical) dispensaries that are operational in the state? But don't let that stop you from going on a moby/anti-libertarian/vote the GOP at all cost rant. Fill your quota good sir.


There will ALWAYS be Feds who will fight State level legalization IMHO.

For sure. But that was not exactly the point the previous poster was making. He was just doing his boring predictable routine.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:34:15 AM EST
So instead of a Constitutional Amendment like prohibition of alcohol, the Feds just made classes of "Controlled" substances that are technically legal, yet Cheech and Chong will ALWAYS be denied a permit? What George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had growing on their respective properties would be illegal today...
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:38:52 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomtbo:
So instead of a Constitutional Amendment like prohibition of alcohol, the Feds just made classes of "Controlled" substances that are technically legal, yet Cheech and Chong will ALWAYS be denied a permit? What George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had growing on their respective properties would be illegal today...
View Quote


Well yeah, didn't marijuana become illegal in the late 1930's?

So I assume you could smoke marijuana during prohibition?

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:42:43 AM EST
No constitutional justification…

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:43:39 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
There is still Federal law on the books that say Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, and the Supreme Court has ruled (in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005)) that "medical marijuana" is still a violation of the Controlled Substance Act.

If you don't like the law elect people to Congress that will change the law.
View Quote




What have you been smoking?

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:54:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


I wonmder if the USC considers the possibility for such a dispute, and declares how they are to be handled?

Oh, yeah, that's right...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken.




The USC trumps laws the feds have no authority to pass in the first place. Granted nobody gives a shit about Article I, Section 8. The bureaucrats of have spoken.


I wonmder if the USC considers the possibility for such a dispute, and declares how they are to be handled?

Oh, yeah, that's right...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


Boom!

LOL!
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 1:56:04 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
+1

He seems to be having an aha moment.
View Quote

Not surprised that language is confusing to you. It usually does elude those of your clan.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:17:10 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

Did you miss the part where there are legal (medical) dispensaries that are operational in the state? But don't let that stop you from going on a moby/anti-libertarian/vote the GOP at all cost rant. Fill your quota good sir.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Did you notice this part?

weeks before the state allows sellers of recreational marijuana to open their doors.


But yeah, keep mobying around trying to keep Republicans from voting and trying to sway the easily fooled. Voting does nothing, so stay home, GOP!!!!




Did you miss the part where there are legal (medical) dispensaries that are operational in the state? But don't let that stop you from going on a moby/anti-libertarian/vote the GOP at all cost rant. Fill your quota good sir.


I guess you can't even understand even when it is pointed out to you.
The state didn't allow them to open their doors and sell yet and it is still a federal crime. So sad...
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:20:19 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:


Well yeah, didn't marijuana become illegal in the late 1930's?

So I assume you could smoke marijuana during prohibition?

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Tomtbo:
So instead of a Constitutional Amendment like prohibition of alcohol, the Feds just made classes of "Controlled" substances that are technically legal, yet Cheech and Chong will ALWAYS be denied a permit? What George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had growing on their respective properties would be illegal today...


Well yeah, didn't marijuana become illegal in the late 1930's?

So I assume you could smoke marijuana during prohibition?




In the 1920s booze was illegal, but opium based tinctures were available for infants with teething troubles, as well as cocaine in your friendly neighborhood drugstore. Marywanna was considered lower-class, but I know my grandparents on my dads' side never ONCE had an empty liquor cabinet, which was a problem for my father; he was told to obey the LAW, yet he would see his dad getting deliveries in the stock brokers' office of anything he and my granny wanted!
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:26:22 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

He is basically stating that 9 men in robes are the end all arbitrator to any constitutional debates. Thus, since they ruled that commerce clause is sufficient to have the Fed in every possible inch of the citizenry lives; its A-OK. Though I suspect he would be singing a different tune if Heller didn't go in our favor.

Bohr_Adam, correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.


ETA:

And if I am correct, your text says "to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What of controversies between citizens and the magical robed men making the decisions?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By YGTGYD:
Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.

He is basically stating that 9 men in robes are the end all arbitrator to any constitutional debates. Thus, since they ruled that commerce clause is sufficient to have the Fed in every possible inch of the citizenry lives; its A-OK. Though I suspect he would be singing a different tune if Heller didn't go in our favor.

Bohr_Adam, correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.


ETA:

And if I am correct, your text says "to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What of controversies between citizens and the magical robed men making the decisions?




3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.


Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:29:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 3:40:17 AM EST by CONKLE73]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dino:
He's saying two things.

View Quote
1) Federal laws trumps state law according to the Constitution.
2) the judiciary has the power to decide cases where there is a supposed conflict between federal law and the Constitution.

Until a judge says federal drug laws are unconstitutional, federal law trumps state law.


For a federal act to be lawful it must be consistent with the powers vested via the constitution… the same goes for the federal courts.



It is not a lawful exercise to act in a manner or rule in a manner inconsistent with the constitution.

(See Article 6 2nd paragraph)

Contrary to popular belief the federal legislature and judiciary do not have the authority to make whatever laws and decisions that they please without running afoul of the Constitution.

To believe otherwise is to concede to the notion that the Constitution is dead and our constitutional republic has been overthrown and replaced with a national Oligarchy.

Which is essentially what HAS happened, but there is a big difference between accepting it and making peace with it .vs rejecting it and seeing it as unlawful.

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:32:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 2:32:37 AM EST by packingXDs]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hughjafj:


I guess you can't even understand even when it is pointed out to you.
The state didn't allow them to open their doors and sell yet and it is still a federal crime. So sad...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Did you notice this part?

weeks before the state allows sellers of recreational marijuana to open their doors.


But yeah, keep mobying around trying to keep Republicans from voting and trying to sway the easily fooled. Voting does nothing, so stay home, GOP!!!!




Did you miss the part where there are legal (medical) dispensaries that are operational in the state? But don't let that stop you from going on a moby/anti-libertarian/vote the GOP at all cost rant. Fill your quota good sir.


I guess you can't even understand even when it is pointed out to you.
The state didn't allow them to open their doors and sell yet and it is still a federal crime. So sad...

Open their doors? These are established medical dispensaries. Already open. Per the article there are ~8 guidelines set forth, that are cited as the likely violations these shops made. Are you suggesting that folks setup brand new retail outlets and starting selling pot, to recreational users, before the law went into effect, thus causing the busts? One of us has a clear reading comprehension problem. Please enlighten me.

Retail marijuana sales are set to begin on Jan. 1 in Colorado, though not all municipalities will be ready to regulate sales by then. For now, dispensaries are supposed to sell only to people with medical permission to use the drug. Many of the state's 500 or so existing dispensaries are making plans to convert to recreational sales.

At one of the raided dispensaries, VIP Cannabis in Denver, agents loaded boxes into a rental truck. One officer wore a surgical mask. Several operators, including some at VIP Cannabis, didn't return calls seeking comment.

A quick google suggests that VIP Cannabis, the only one mentioned by name, is an already established medical dispensary.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:33:49 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kudzu630:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By YGTGYD:
Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove.

He is basically stating that 9 men in robes are the end all arbitrator to any constitutional debates. Thus, since they ruled that commerce clause is sufficient to have the Fed in every possible inch of the citizenry lives; its A-OK. Though I suspect he would be singing a different tune if Heller didn't go in our favor.

Bohr_Adam, correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.


ETA:

And if I am correct, your text says "to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What of controversies between citizens and the magical robed men making the decisions?


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512VfN8u9xL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.



I read his interview when the book came out. Lots of good ideas being promoted in it.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:34:53 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Instead of just decriminalizing the plant, as they should have done, they will end up setting up MORE government to regulate it. The bureaucratic apparatuses they are building for marijuana regulation are huge.
View Quote



Most likely this.

Now there's going to have to be a State Department of Marijuana and about a jillion people to add to the payroll.

Any tax money that thay take in will be outspent by this new governmental agency.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:36:54 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

So local LE sent the Feds after them? Or do they get on the radar of the feds for not complying with State law?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
These guys were not operating in compliance with state law.

So local LE sent the Feds after them? Or do they get on the radar of the feds for not complying with State law?

ETA:

WAG, but, I assume they are moving weight and making lots of cash. Possibly selling to undercovers?

Sources close to the investigation tell 9Wants to Know, agents are gathering evidence, trying to prove profits made from cannabis grow operations are flowing back to Colombian drug cartels.

Whelp, that would do it.

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:42:08 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GrasshopperNOmore:
One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting.
View Quote


i wont hold my breath
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:09:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

DEA, IRS raid Denver-area marijuana businesses

View Quote
"DENVER – Federal agents raided an unknown number of marijuana dispensaries and growing sites on Thursday in Colorado, confiscating piles of marijuana plants and cartons of cannabis-infused drinks just weeks before the state allows sellers of recreational marijuana to open their doors.


DEA raiding marijuana dispensaries in Puget Sound region



The will of the people doesn't matter. If you don't like a law, work hard to change it, and do!...it still doesn't matter because the government will do what they want anyway.

What's tyranny again?



State's right vs. Federal jurisdiction.

Sounds like the premise for the first civil war.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:17:29 AM EST
It's not a joke. If other states follow suit then the FEDs will be forced to reevaluate the issue.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:24:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GrasshopperNOmore:
One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting.
View Quote

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:28:09 AM EST
My frustration is with the State. They pass a law that they know is invalid under current Federal statutes, they accept fees and issue licenses for that illegal activity, and then they watch the poor dumb bastards that trusted them get hauled away by the Feds. Why is the State not being prosecuted by the Feds for being a party to illegal activity?

I'm for legalization, but until it's done on a Federal level the States that legalize are just using people as sacrificial lambs. If they had any integrity at all they would be providing for their legal defense.

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:31:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 3:39:06 AM EST by hughjafj]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Open their doors? These are established medical dispensaries. Already open. Per the article there are ~8 guidelines set forth, that are cited as the likely violations these shops made. Are you suggesting that folks setup brand new retail outlets and starting selling pot, to recreational users, before the law went into effect, thus causing the busts? One of us has a clear reading comprehension problem. Please enlighten me.

Retail marijuana sales are set to begin on Jan. 1 in Colorado, though not all municipalities will be ready to regulate sales by then. For now, dispensaries are supposed to sell only to people with medical permission to use the drug. Many of the state's 500 or so existing dispensaries are making plans to convert to recreational sales.

At one of the raided dispensaries, VIP Cannabis in Denver, agents loaded boxes into a rental truck. One officer wore a surgical mask. Several operators, including some at VIP Cannabis, didn't return calls seeking comment.



A quick google suggests that VIP Cannabis, the only one mentioned by name, is an already established medical dispensary.
View Quote

And violating the law before Jan, 1. Not that it matters since Fed law says it's illegal.

Read the first post in this thread and think about what the subject is and get back to me.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:31:57 AM EST
A development of great interest would be a person running for Sheriff and winning on an honest promise to not allow the FEDs to conduct such operations in their 'doping' county, and then the FEDs challenging it.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:37:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
The raids, conducted on a frigid, snowy morning, were the first in Colorado since the U.S. Department of Justice said in August that it wouldn't interfere with state marijuana laws as long as the drug is kept away from children, the black market and other states, among other guidelines.

In a statement, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver said the criminal investigations unit of the Internal Revenue Service, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and Denver authorities were involved in executing the sealed search and seizure warrants.

The raided businesses were suspected of violating more than one of the eight guidelines issued by the Justice Department.
View Quote



Much ado about nothing as usual from the neo libertarian left minarchists.

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:38:37 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hughjafj:

And violating the law before Jan, 1. Not that it matters since Fed law says it's illegal.
View Quote

Clearly you read nothing but the snippet in the OP, went into your normal bitch fest about the poor old GOP, and have nothing to offer. Ill concede to your finely honed debate skills.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 3:38:49 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
The federal government is so far out of bounds here. It's time someone checked them.
View Quote


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top