User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 12:53:05 AM EDT
[#1]
One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 12:54:34 AM EDT
[#2]
These guys were not operating in compliance with state law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 12:54:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Color me surprised.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 12:56:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting. The locals are beholden to the Feds for tons of funding, that's not an accident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:08:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:15:47 AM EDT
[#6]
It's time to invoke the 10th Amendment and throw these fuckers in jail for not respecting state law
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:17:11 AM EDT
[#7]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:20:09 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:20:27 AM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:24:22 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:27:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, it's only a fucking peace of paper. "The people" have spoken Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:29:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:35:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:40:23 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Instead of just quoting a text, please speak specifically to what you're trying to prove. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:41:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:52:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:56:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. It really doesn't matter what people's personal preferences are regarding the use of intoxicants, "the people have spoken". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:59:41 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:02:04 AM EDT
[#19]
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!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:04:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. They never had the power to enact it to begin with, so what difference does it make? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:15:03 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:17:43 AM EDT
[#22]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:20:20 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.................... 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:21:24 AM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:31:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Well as the courts stopped following the USC and just ruling however the fuck they want, what authority do they really hold anymore? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:33:24 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There will ALWAYS be Feds who will fight State level legalization IMHO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: .................... 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:34:15 AM EDT
[#27]
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...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:38:52 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:42:43 AM EDT
[#29]
No constitutional justification… |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:43:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
What have you been smoking?  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:54:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:56:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 He seems to be having an aha moment.
Not surprised that language is confusing to you. It usually does elude those of your clan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:17:10 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:20:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well yeah, didn't marijuana become illegal in the late 1930's? So I assume you could smoke marijuana during prohibition? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:26:22 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:29:02 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:32:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:33:49 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:34:53 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:36:54 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So local LE sent the Feds after them? Or do they get on the radar of the feds for not complying with State law? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:42:08 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting.  i wont hold my breath |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:09:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: 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. The action appeared to send a message...." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/22/dea-irs-raid-denver-area-marijuana-businesses/ 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? Sounds like the premise for the first civil war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:17:29 AM EDT
[#43]
It's not a joke. If other states follow suit then the FEDs will be forced to reevaluate the issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:24:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One of these days local LEOs are going to stand up to this shit and it's going to get interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:28:09 AM EDT
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:31:49 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:31:57 AM EDT
[#47]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:37:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryThe 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. Much ado about nothing as usual from the neo libertarian left minarchists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:38:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And violating the law before Jan, 1. Not that it matters since Fed law says it's illegal. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 4:38:49 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The federal government is so far out of bounds here. It's time someone checked them. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
