SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Per Fox News:

The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.

[jayef]

Yep. I get that. I should have been explicit.

[Remember_Salamis]

This is what I jsut heard on CNN:

Stevens: "Federal Law Trumps State Law."

[mugs99]

I can't wait for the public backlash that will follow if the federal government decides to start martyring patients over this decision

The backlash will be anti-christian and anti-republican. The ACLU will gain more contributors and drug use among teens will increase. The drug crusaders will respond by clamping down on "supporters" of drug use on TV and music.
Liberalism will grow and liberals will win control of house and senate. The backlash will gaurantee that the christian right will be defeated on abortion and homosexual marriage.

States rights have been proven to be nothing more than an illusion and we are a one size fits all nation.
...

[highball]

It's just that, when people start talking about rights and how we were allegedly endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, I reflexively look to the Bible to determine whether it contains any such concept.

Doesn't matter. The Bible is not relevant to this case. The Declaration of Independence, which is one of the documents that should matter, makes itself clear.

Perhaps Jefferson made it up. Perhaps God didn't endow us with inalienable rights. Doesn't matter - our system of government says that we have them, and therefore we do unless we give them up or otherwise let the Feds take them away.

[Libertina]

If you think this is bad, check out the ruling on overturning the fraudulent gubenatorial election in Wa State... :(

Judge rules illegal votes OK because we can't prove WHO they voted for in the election

[Remember_Salamis]

"the right to marijuana isn't one of those rights"

-- The Constitution is built on NEGATIVE rights, not POSITIVE rights. It says what you can't do, not what you CAN do.

I thin kthe reason this case lost is that the Liberals who filed it didn't cite the 9th and 10th amendments, which they despise...

[newgeezer]

I fail to see where you allegedly turned my "argument back against" me. I agree with everything you wrote, except...

This does not mean that the .gov is operating under His auspices, does it?

We don't really know, do we? All I know for sure is that He could stop any or all evil whenever He wants to, before it happens. Thus, whenever He allows evil to exist, I have to say He has, in effect, "approved" of its existence. In the end, He will demonstrate how everything has turned out right and good (Romans 8:28).

His reasons are His reasons, and not for the likes of us to know.

Exactly.

[P_A_I]

Why don't the courts rule this way on firearms in California and strike down all their restrictive bans?


Answer:
The court is being selective once again. I agree with Thomas. The courts are out of control folks.
307 I got the rope


_____________________________________



The simple answer is because California's laws are not in violation of federal law. Federal law as created by our represenatives.
311 kjam22

---

-- kjam, the 2nd Amendment is the "Law of the Land". Read Art VI. All amendments are 'federal law', the supreme law.

Do you really believe that CA has the power to infringe upon & prohibit our RKBA's?

[Destro]

Thomas dissented on this case? My respect for teh man went up 10fold.

[Pepper777]

" I'm on your side but, to my knowledge, no one claims marijuana prolongs life. It just eases the pain, right? "

Perhaps it could actually prolong life. I've heard the use of marijuana stops the nausea of the cancer and therefore, the person eats, without throwing up.

I would think the ability to again eat, would improve and or prolong their life.

[Destro]

Minor but important point - The Declaration of Independence is not law and can't be cited in court cases as such. The DoI existed before the USA came into being and is treated as one would treat the Magna Carta I recon.

[kjam22]

Luke 20:25 "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. " I'm not sure what you mean by Jefferson worshiper, but I do know what God said. Something does not belong to the federal Government simply because he demands it (voting majority.) The rights of the government are limited by the prior rights of the person. As a Baptist Deacon you should know this.

You know what I think? I think our government gives us more individual rights than God does. Take free speech. Read what the book of James has to say about our speech. God limits what we should say much more than our government does.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say in your post to me. That If a person didn't believe as a libretarian that they weren't following the bible??

Grant unto Caesar that which is Caesars. That means follow the law. Pay your taxes. Do what the government requires of you as long as it doesn't go against God's law. How do you figure marijuana fits in there??

[mugs99]

His quoted comment above leads me to believe that if Scalia ever decides a 2nd amendment case

The interstate commerce clause can now be used to nullify the 2nd amendment, and any other right 'congress' believes detrimental to its agenda.

Those who celebrate this marijuana decision will be cryin' in their beer when a liberal administration uses it against them...ROFL!
... ...

[coloradan]

This is about the only thing I agree with the libertarians on.

You support high taxes, gun control, and censorship, and oppose limited government?

[highball]

True enough.

But my point remains - the Constitution is crystal-clear. If it's not specifically granted to the federal government, it belongs to the states or to the people. This is a power grab, plain and simple.

[Fishtalk]

How can that be wrong?

It's not.

You are exactly correct.

[kjam22]

If all ammendments are federal law... then why do they call them ammendments to the constitution and what the congress passes laws?

I didn't say that California's law didn't violate the 2nd ammendment. I don't know if it does or not. But I did say that it didn't violate the federal law. Speaking of laws created by congress. And it doesn't that I'm aware of.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

I refer you back to your post 316

"Our sovereign God both endows and repeals "rights" when He works through the governments He puts in place."

You called it His works. He gave us free will. You have confused the works of man with the works of God. They are not the same thing. You are assuming approval by His apparent lack of action on the subject. Perhaps the actions by the states and the voters are His will, and not the other way around. Perhaps it is His will that this sets in motion the events that change/restore the .gov to what was intended. Perhaps.

It was your argument that this was God's work. You may presume too much. But then, so might I.

[Destro]

It seems so to me.

[newgeezer]

Doesn't matter. The Bible is not relevant to this case.

Did I say it is?

I'll say it one more time: I was commenting on a side issue.