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.
She and a few others (Paulsen, PKM) are the drama queens of marijuana and/or Federal monarchy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~pot4pain/
Looks like someone went and clicked the Report Abuse link. I do hope they leave his posts up.
I am at least one member who did.
Wishing cancer on someone and their family is not allowed here, and it will never be allowed here.
Thats what makes FR a good place to be.
Thius post is BS...As some medicines are needed for certain diseases, the medical community does not recognize non-traditional medicine but there own Western Culture.
Why do you think others have opted for non-traditional medicine thropugh homeopathic remedies..Look at the Obsesity problem in this country heart disease, cancer? look at other countries that have longevity through food and herbs..
Sorry Doctors in the Traditional sense and the FDA behoove them to keep people sick!
"Okay. Let me get this straight. I said users rarely go to jail."
No actually you didn't. You said users rarely get prosecuted and that when they do they usually get a fine and community service and that it was no big deal. That is simply wrong and so are you for trying to discount the ordeal that the law puts millions through just for toking up.
Again, you have no idea what your talking about. Have you been through it?
And how is this a Federal issue vs State's Rights? Oh that's right, since the Civil War there are no State's issues.
Will the Supremes now set our drinking ages and our speed limits too?
According to their interpretation of the Commerce Clause, they sure can, if they want to.
I guess this is another blow to turn our constitution into so much toilet paper. More power to the Federal CENTRAL government and hope no lefties ever come to power.
NOW the libs will get pissed about judicial activism. taking away their drugs. that's where they draw the line.
Congress re-enacted that law by declaring that guns "that had traveled in or affected interstate commerce" could not be near schools. That law is still on the books, and remains to be struck down. The struck-down law didn't include the interstate commerce language. There certainly isn't any principled argument why guns "that have travelled in interstate commerce" can be prohibited to be near schools by congress, except by the vastly expansionist interpretation of the ICC.
I'm inclined to disagree with the idea of slipping a "medical" excuse for toking, given that I have smoked the bong before when I was younger and in retrospect see absolutely NO redeeming qualities to marijuana. That aside, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm indignated that the MIB would make such rulings. Any such thing is up to the states and the people, not the courts. The courts have adbicated their judical duties and have become a supreme legislature, with poweres superceeding Congress and without power of presidential veto. What does that make them???? Tyrants. Between overbearing courts and bureacracies at every level of society, we have traded one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants a mile away.
With the exception of drug issues, its not about Congress claiming power.... It's Congress adbicating its soverign power to make the law to a supreme legislative branch composed of the federal court system, with no external veto power (although higher courts can and obviously do from time to time go back on lower court decisions) and no power to overthrow them by the pen.. There remains only one other way in the pen's absence.
Why not? The Legislative Brance has already done both of those via the blackmail of Federal highway funding. The Judicial Branch might as well have some fun, too.
Glad to see you didn't let your personal opinions overrule a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Kudos to you.
>I believe it would have destroyed the AAA, yes.
You may well be right, but the Court indulged itself in theoreticals at that juncture without engaging what I see as the necessary full extent of their mode of argument: the broad economic implications of the theoretical mass action. If the theoretical economic impact was so substantial as to bring down the AAA, where would the positive benefit be realized? That offsetting economic reaction isn't given any airtime by the Court and, I contend, that for the Court to have legitimately rendered a decision of such far-reaching impact, affirming such a penetrating extent of Congressional power, the reasoning behind that decision should necessarily have been of the greatest depth and the most broad range of consideration; certainly not narrowed to the scope of a single commodity market, as it was.
The language of the Constitution itself prescribes no limit to the Congressional power to regulate trade among the States and the Court has seemingly agreed that the scope of this language has no practical limit. But, what the Framers had in mind, and what has become accepted in Law are, I think, very different. I certainly don't think that they envisioned the Congressional power extending to the disposition of Mr. Filburn's excess wheat crop.
Just my perception on a layman's read of the decision within the time constraints under which I read and post.
Right now in CA there is a proposal to require serial numbers on ammunition.
Imagine sometime in the future when the dems have control of congress and hillary is president. To keep criminals from getting ammunition all cartridges have serial numbers and it requires a federal license to handle them. Because ammunition is a "fungible commodity" reloading of ammunition at home is banned, in accordance with the interstate commerce clause, and possesion of reloading equipment and/or brass by an unlicensed person carries a mandatory minimum sentence in a federal prison.
This wouldn't violate the 2d amendment because guns and ammunition would still be available but every single cartridge would be traceable.
Still happy the hippies got a good smackdown?
Of that, you are dead on. That many people don't get to the core of an issue is a huge irritation of mine. Now that I get a better context of your thoughts, I now offer admiration instead of disdain.
Actually, I have a skin condition that causes constant pain and irritation. Every day. All over. All over, if you get my meaning. All of my life.
In case you were wondering.
Thanks.
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.