Supreme Court murders California man

[nicholasstanko]

Considering the source, I find this statement absolutely hilarious. Many times when someone strongly disagrees with you or disparages your so-called "sources" you launch a personal attack, rather than following your own advice. Take the other thread as a case in point: yocass picked apart your argument point by point and called into question the accuracy and credibility of your sources, and how did you respond? By attacking his avatar and suggestion he was unhappy because that must be his picture. Was that your idea of decency and common sense?

Yes beeblebrox. youre absolutely right. how dumb of me.

Dont post a thread to support what you're saying since i already called on you to show me what you're talking about.

Yocass didnt pick apart anything. if you want to call abstract speculation "picking apart" at credible sources, then...well you know how i feel about you

yeh, how do i respond to unfounded and ridiculous criticism? by comtinuing to debate with the same credible sources and keep putting on a laugh show for an ignorant asshole? thats a much better idea.. a real mod think tanker.


I'm waiting for any criticsim on yocass' part....but i might get a muscle cramp.


Keep up the "great" work!


let's roll.

[pisshead]

i don't see anywhere in the constitution where it gives the feds' the explicit authority to make plants illegal...

therefore, couldn't the supreme court have said THAT? and that it's a states' rights issue, and the states should decide if someone should be prosecuted.

there could be a federal law overturning the 1st amendment that's passed, would the supreme court have to uphold it?

the court doesn't have to be a rubber stamp, that's actually kind of a bad thing.

[nicholasstanko]

i don't see anywhere in the constitution where it gives the feds' the explicit authority to make plants illegal...

therefore, couldn't the supreme court have said THAT? and that it's a states' rights issue, and the states should decide if someone should be prosecuted.

there could be a federal law overturning the 1st amendment that's passed, would the supreme court have to uphold it?

the court doesn't have to be a rubber stamp, that's actually kind of a bad thing.

i really think it's about money though. we dont need lumber and pharmaceutical industries at all. that's what scares the shit out of the government.

plus they make billions from drug sales anyway.

[Beeblebrox.420]

i don't see anywhere in the constitution where it gives the feds' the explicit authority to make plants illegal...

The purpose of the Constitution is not so much to grant authority, but rather to limit it. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can't regulate things like this.

[pisshead]

right, it limits the feds' authority, and grants everything else to the states. what congress can do is explicity outlined, if it doesn't have the authority to do it, it can't.

given your statement, the congress can do anything because the constitution doesn't say it can't...

article 1, section 8.

[nicholasstanko]

touche'

[Beeblebrox.420]

Experts disagree with your assessment:

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

From here. Arguably, making marijuana illegal is an effort by Congress to ensure domestic tranquility. Whether this is actually being accomplished, however, is a matter of some debate. I agree that making it illegal is of dubious effectiveness, but I disagree with your statement that they have no right to do so.

[Beeblebrox.420]

Also, Article I, section 8 says, in part:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This is sort of the catchall that allows the US Congress to make such laws as it deems necessary to use the powers the Constitution explicity grants it. Congress has the authority to make whatever laws it sees fit. It is the job of the Supreme court to determine if these laws explicity violate the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Thus far, the Court has not found reason to rule the laws pertaining to marijuana to be unconstitutional.

Again, to be clear, I am NOT agreeing with the laws, only with the fact that the US Congress does, in fact, have the Constitutional authority to make such laws, if it so deems fit.

[nicholasstanko]

Experts disagree with your assessment:
From here. Arguably, making marijuana illegal is an effort by Congress to ensure domestic tranquility. Whether this is actually being accomplished, however, is a matter of some debate. I agree that making it illegal is of dubious effectiveness, but I disagree with your statement that they have no right to do so.

touche

[highinspain]

A Bit off track, but it shows that the government is really out of touch, if they cannot agree to give equal rights to all how can they possibly legalize marijuana....

The ERA's first section states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." It was intended to place into law the equality of men and women. It was sent to the states in March, 1972. The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years. It expired unratified in 1982.

The text:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.