Posted on 01/03/2005 9:57:34 AM PST by CHARLITE
Do not ever quote something as mine when it is not.
Retract it or I hit abuse. Amazing that the only way people like you can make your point it to lie and distort. That should tell you something right there.
"Which Section and Clause of the Constitution grant the Federal government the power to interfere in State medical mj programs, in your opinion?"
This issue is not one of legal precedent but one of social norms.
Citizens who vote can decide for themselves. So far it appears most voters come down against medical mj or any other kind of mj use.
"The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom."
-- John Stuart Mill
Hemp gums up any machinery used to process it. Unless we go back to the 17th century it doesn't make any sense to grow it for industrial purposes.
Precisely, and states rights is a tar baby for everyone. That's why the politicians prefer federalizing everything. Allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana sounds good in theory but neither side wants that. The anti-dope people don't want marijuana at all and the pro-dope people don't want restrictions on it. So nothing happens.
"We Repubs are for states rights..."
Nor necesarily and not when states are more repressive and corrupt and bureacratic than at the federal level.
I would say that most Republicans are for economic freedom and moral conservative values...that means no marijuana for so called medical use or any other use.
In the quote (the entire quote can be found in post #33), Madison is simply distinguishing which power was behind the formation of the clause and why. If he wanted to exclude all other powers, he would have said "not".
Just because you interpret "rather than" as "not" in this phrase doesn't give you the right to reword Madison's quote and post it as his. Let people read it for themselves -- wassa matter, scared they may not think the way you do? Or are other Freepers not as smart as you and need your translation?
I agree. And I'm confident it'll be the proper and correct one.
But I said "to place that interpretation of this letter in perspective" -- ie., to place KenH's (wrong) interpretation of this letter in perspective.
Yeah, that's how he got to be a multi-billionaire.
Let's say, "Soros is usually on the wrong side of the issue" instead.
Yeah, how so? How was the History Channel's presentation of the story inaccurate?
No matter how many times I scan these threads, I am still surprised at the number of supposedly 'conservative' Americans who are still entranced by the promise of the State.
You're a pack of God damned socialist boot-lickers, and the pack of you isn't worth the powder to blow you to hell!
Kids - disrespect wrongful authority!
Some guy in Lawrence.
"There’s a conflict between “facial” challenges and “as-applied” challenges that comes up in each case. The normal rule is that you start with an “as-applied” challenge. That means that there a particular person in court who says: “This law is unconstitutional as applied to me.” It could be a civil or criminal defendant."
!!!!!
My sentiments exactly.
I would like to know if robertpaulsen can make his arguments without all the name-calling and verbal abuse?
If you want a giggle, check out his "about page".
The boy has a very, very high opinion of himself.
Based on my experiences watching History Channel shows...in general they are biased towards the left wing. I can give you many examples.
As for the actual drug show which was produced in 2001 BTW - I heard snippets and my impression is that it was a slickly-made overtly non judgmental presentation. The overall tone seems to be...well... we've been doing drugs for thousands of years...let's keep doing them and not be so uptight. The tone is what I object to.
In other words, your opinion is based on your feelings or your emotional reaction to the program. What facts did the History Channel get wrong?
I'm "feeling" right now that you are smoking something Mr. Hemingway....
Did KenH retract his lie? Not yet, that I can see.
I called tacticalogic a liar? In this thread?
And I'm supposed to retract which statement of mine?
Bring in on, buddy-boy.
But I said "to place that interpretation of this letter in perspective" -- ie., to place KenH's (wrong) interpretation of this letter in perspective.
When you find the first person who agrees with your (allegedly correct) interpretation and can give reasonably lucid explaination of the reasoning behind it, let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.