Posted on 06/06/2005 7:16:18 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Per Fox News:
The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.
It is you types that push Intelligent Design, no? You tell me.
I don't smoke it nor am I a Libertarian.
I can't believe it but I agree. Employees have no right to use antihistamines that put their employeer at financial risk. Even more so for prescibed pain killers.
I don't push intelligent design. I "push" God spoke it into existence. "Let there be LIGHT"....
Well I certainly wouldn't want to be one to wish her kind of degenerative spinal disease upon anyone...especially the likes of those who will now put her in jail for seeking pain relief...and then those who support such hideous barbaric actions...actions now made possible by a SC which also promotes murder via abortion.
I'll make a deal with you. You don't insult my intelligence and I'll try real hard not to insult yours.
You know, it's interesting the whining and bitching and moaning over all this, but we're AOK with the FDA. Libertarians' priorities amaze me. At least when I take my prescribed folic acid, nobody else in the same room is getting the same "contact cure".
"They + the media will paint this as an issue split cleanly along party lines, since the administration brought this case in the first place."
Yeah, that makes sense ... every Justice that dissented in favor of 'states rights' (Thomas, O'Connor, Rehnquist) is a Republican, and the Dems all voted *for* Federal power.
If the media misreports it, that would be ... typical.
"Can you imagine the outcry if someone DIED of thier disease during or even after their prosecution? "
Gee, you mean like how a court ordered a death of a woman named Terry Schiavo and the media had an outcry? (sarcasm alert)
Obviously, it is pointless to continue this. Under your interpretation, no one can do wrong, because God would have stopped a rapist before he raped and murdered a little girl if He actually disapproved of that action. Sin cannot exist under your scenario, because it is all God's will. If this is the case, the 10 Commandments were not needed in the first place, were they?
He gave us free will, and the ability to exercise it. You seem to be unable to grasp that concept.
Yet... with over 20,000 lines in the new testament, scholars can only find 40 some odd that are different today than the earliest known manuscripts.
You're repeating mantra that I'd guess you have no real knowledge of.
You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the bible. Take it or leave it. The text says that God works through governments. That he institutes governments for his own purposes. That's the bottom line.
"I can't wait for the public backlash that will follow if the federal government decides to start martyring patients over this decision."
No backlash, no impact.
MJ has been illegal for a *century* so what is this "starting" stuff, this just takes us back to where states have been for 90+ years. MJ is a recreational drug and does absolutely nothing to help prolong anyone's life - there are plenty of painkillers that do a better job than MJ anyway ... as for 'martyring patients' ... well, you have to move to Florida and hook up with Judge Greer for that!
"Meanwhile, it's A-OK for local and state governments to totally ignore federal law on topics explicitly assigned to the feds in the Constitution... such as illegal immigration."
Actually, there is a good point here ... the Feds are NOT INSISTING the locals help. They COULD, but there is push-back from local and state govts that dont want to bother enforcing. Bills are the pipeline to get local police to help enforce immigration laws.
If this ruling went the other way - in effect allowing states to 'opt out' of Federal regulation, no doubt the pro-open-borders folks would have used the ruling to undermine the immigration law enforcement.
Yep, and I'll bet they all told her that they were innocent of their crimes as well.
"It seems often we're angry when the court declares the laws created by congress, and supported by the american people to be unconstitutional. We say the court is legislating from the bench. This time the court has upheld laws created by congress, and supported by the majority of the american people, and we're still angry??"
Yes, this behavior is an over-reaction ...
What the court up-held was the power of the Federal Government to regulate drug possession. If the Federal Govt *has* that power, then states cant simply "overturn" the Federal law unilaterally - they have to get Congress to decide.
If the Congress *doesnt* have that power, then there is a host of other things the Congress cant do ... with plenty of side-effects.
Like the decision or not, this is NOT an expansion of Federal powers, but an affirmation of powers the Feds have used for decades (going back to 1920s) and courts have affirmed since that time. It's hardly unexpected - what would be unexpected would be to actually have the court overturn 80 years of commerce clause decisions (Wickard v Fillburn) and go the other way!
O'Connor, Stevens, Thomas
and God said let there be cannabis and he saw that it was good, no>
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.