"Guru of Ganja" (Ed Rosenthal) convicted of marijuana cultivation

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 01/31/03 | DAVID KRAVETS

[jmc813]

Because you would know that the bible is Gods word and that it(The Holy Bible) is good and true.

Where does the Bible advocate capital punishment for drug dealing? Tell me, are you one of the FF578-type FReepers who think homosexuals should be executed?

[exnavy]

I think it is you that miss the point. What higher authority is there than God?

[exnavy]

If you have to ask me that question, maybe you should spend some time reasearching the bible, than you could teach me.

[Cultural Jihad]

"Axxessman signed up 2003-02-02."

Sheesh. Signed on today, and his first post gets zapped, although in the hard-to-reprimand backroom. It doesn't bode well for a long-term friendship, eh?

[Cultural Jihad]

The backroom, where all good libertarian threads go to florish.

As the smokey pokey backroom walls would say if they could: "All your drug thread are belong to us."

[jmc813]

I've read it cover to cover twice, though the last time was two years ago, so maybe I'm just not remembering. I'm just curious about your brand of justice. Which other crimes deserve capital punishment? Armed Robberry? DWI? Homosexuality?

[exnavy]

I've heard all the pro durg arguments, think of this. If Jesus Christ came back today, would you rather get caught smoking a joint, or reading Gods word?

[exnavy]

I don't know about you, I can't find very many reasons to support the anti-WOD group.

[jmc813]

I've heard all the pro durg arguments, think of this. If Jesus Christ came back today, would you rather get caught smoking a joint, or reading Gods word?

I understand, your reason for supporting the drug war is because of morals. In your opinion, do you think the First Amendment should be changed in order to prevent people from speaking blasphemy?

[exnavy]

Don't be silly.

[jmc813]

Don't be silly.

Twas not my intent. Believe it or not, there actually is a small number of FReepers who have admitted they would have no problem with this.

The point I was trying to make is that the Constitution grants Americans liberties to do things others might not like. I'm assuming from your previous posts that you are a Second Amendment supporter. Are you outraged when blatently unconstitutional laws are passed such as the "smart gun" legislation recently enacted in my home state of New Jersey? If so, why the selective outrage?

[Roscoe]

Did he get any checks and orders from the patients?

According to the testimony, he recieved checks from another drug dealer.

How many plants did he supposedly give away? Was there evidence of even one?

"Local governments cannot override Proposition 215"

For example, the city of Oakland.

"...which specifically permits patients..."

Rosenthal wasn't a patient.

[dcwusmc]

Exactly correct for the first time in your life, KC. Had the court actually had JUSTICE in mind, Ed's defense would have been the equivalent of knocking out the persecutor with a 2x4. It would have been all over but the shouting. Sadly, what they had in mind was railroading him into a Federal Rape Camp. And to do that, they had to tie BOTH his hands behind him. And YOU waste our time and JimRob's bandwidth CHEERING these morons and this travesty of "justice." You are one sicko, Kevin, you and Dane.

[dcwusmc]

The Supremes were NOT handed that authority by the Constitution. They snatched it in Marbury v Madison in about 1803. The Founders wrote a Constitution so simple that even a retired old mud Marine like me can understand it. If I can comprehend it, most surely YOU can... and so should our congress critters. But they don't even bother to READ it anymore... except to parse it for the meaning of "is!"

[dcwusmc]

I was in Vietnam in the late '60s. BFD. I firmly believe we need to follow and honor the CONSTITUTION. And people like you need to READ it and UNDERSTAND it. The Constitution puts limits on GOVERNMENT, especially FedGov. It does NOT put limits on we, the People, outside normal criminal things, which are STATE affairs.

Government is supposed to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS, not declare war on some because they ingest unapproved substances. Read the Founding Documents sometime and then recall the oath you took when you enlisted.

[Roscoe]

If you have a problem with the Federal law take it up with the person who probably is the most sympathetic to Mr. Rosenthal's plight, House Minority(Democratic) Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Well said!

[exnavy]

"people like me"

[dcwusmc]

Yes, people like you who seem to find it OK for FedGov to declare war on the very people you took an oath to protect when you joined the Navy. Dane and roscoe and kc and cj don't seem to have served and being FedGov goons doesn't count so they have an excuse. You and I DO NOT have that excuse, as we swore to protect and defend the Constitution from ALL its enemies, foreign and domestic. So, again, people like YOU and like me.

(And where in the Bible did Jesus tell us to get a law passed if we did not want to watch our brother sinning? As a Christian, YOU have something FAR BETTER to offer someone besides dope... why is it that the best you DO offer is prison and death?)

[Bonaparte]

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself."

And John Marshall was just that sort of man. In Marbury v. Madison he made a brilliant case (many would say "airtight") for judicial review as a power implicit in Article III, a power that necessarily followed from Article III. Congress could easily have voted out an amendment to the states abolishing judicial review if they had wanted to. They've done this sort of thing before, eg. the income tax, women's suffrage, popular election of US senators, etc. Why do you suppose they didn't do this concerning judicial review? Afterall, when Marshall decided Marbury Congress lost power to the judiciary (Marshall struck down an act of Congress). Why didn't Congress at least try to assert itself against that? Indeed, why has it never made such an attempt?

Just something to think about...

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered and debated the subject of judicial review. Some, such as Hamilton, wanted it explicitly enumerated. Others wanted it explicitly forbidden. Nobody could agree so it was left an open question (as many others were) to be resolved as time went by. Cocerning this controversy, Jefferson made a remark that is either his most naive or his most disingenuous (I can't decide which), namely, that if a conflict arose between the court and the Congress or between the court and the executive, reason and fairplay would prevail. He certainly got his chance to find out!

Britain is an example of a country that has no judicial review. In that country, Parliament is the court of last appeal. That's right -- the legislative body that thinks its countrymen cannot be trusted with guns or even with kitchen knives is the final arbiter in matters of law. Some prefer that system. I like the one we've got.