Taking Back the Joint

National Review ^ | 11/14/2012 | Betsy Woodruff

[MadIsh32]

Much ink has been spilt in describing the precise nature of the soul-searching the GOP is undergoing in the wake of getting totally shellacked last Tuesday. There are a plethora of suggestions — of varying degrees of helpfulness — as to how the Republican party can re-brand and re-orient itself; ranging from capitulating on taxes to deciding that gay marriage isn’t a hill to die on. But there’s one easy ideological maneuver that Republicans could make that would simultaneously burnish their stance as the party of freedom and expand their base while alienating the president from his. It is a move that might also make one swing state a little easier to win in 2016. Congressional Republicans and conservative leaders could get on the weed bandwagon.

Now, the John Boehners and Mitch McConnells of the world may never win the loyalty of the Choom Gang contingent. But Republicans should rejoice with those who rejoiced when voters in Colorado and Washington passed sensible marijuana policy. Last Tuesday, both states passed ballot measures decriminalizing the recreational use of medical marijuana — and giving the GOP an early Christmas present.

[MadIsh32]

This is an obvious thing for conservatives to jump on, states rights for legalizing marijuana, especially with the amount of raids the Obama DOJ did in California.

Want to make a huge dent in the millennial vote? This is it, and is totally in line with conservative values

[Portcall24]

You’re absolutely correct but this opportunity is fleeting for GOP. They need to come out strong in support of states rights on this issue. If so I’ll bet they would bring a substantial number of youth vote with them.

[Buckeye McFrog]

This current crop of millenials is the ME ME ME Generation.

And Obama exploited that perfectly, using targeted social media to convince each and every one of them that their particular pet issue, no matter how weird or esoteric, was their top priority.

The GOP has to somehow master this new environment. Spouting off on talk radio as they did in the 90’s is going to yield diminishing returns.

[rarestia]

They need to come out strong in support of states rights on this issue. If so I’ll bet they would bring a substantial number of youth vote with them.

You're assuming that the Millenials actually understand how our system of government works.

"States rights? What do you mean? Like stating you have a right to something?"

Conservatives will continue to decline due to our public schools. We've been checkmated by the liberal progressive agenda, as it's being pushed on our children by liberal educators to advance an agenda. A majority of parents have to work to keep the household humming, so kids are left to the devices of the progressive agendas being preached in our schools.

I predict in 50 years, the American form of government we all understand to exist will be replaced by a revisionist history form of bastardized democracy. The word "Republic" doesn't exist anymore. People want mob/simple-majority rule.

[MadIsh32]

I don’t see the 10th Amendment as a “weird or esoteric” issue, in particular when it involves a plant that at worst makes one sleepy.

Marijuana prohibition is the federal government run amok

[Portcall24]

” plant that at worst makes one sleepy.”

Not to mention the boost it would give to the junk and fast food industry.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I’m not debating marijuana legalization with you. My point is that Obama figured out how to reach voters to whom that is a priority issue and convince them that it was his priority issue too, using social media. That same voter I bet you never turns on AM radio to listen to Limbaugh.

[CitizenUSA]

I’m not keen on illegal drugs and would probably vote to outlaw pot in my state. That said, I only support the federal drug war where it seeks to protect the nation’s borders. I agreed 100% with Justice Clarence Thomas when he supported California’s right to medical marijuana laws:

Gonzales V. Raich

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

The federal government is way too powerful in way too many ways, the drug war being just one of them. I think the 10th Amendment is probably the only chance of preserving the union as we know it. Why? Because the people in my state have virtually nothing in common with the leftists on the coasts.

I honestly respect California’s right to create its own Marxist hell. My problem with California and the other blue states is that they aren’t content to leave me alone in my state. They seem hell bent on making all states follow their totalitarian, one world government path, something which the US Constitution clearly never intended.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

From the article: "A lot of smart people think weed is the devil".

I've never encountered a smart person who thinks weed is the devil.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I [...] would probably vote to outlaw pot in my state.

Why?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I agreed 100% with Justice Clarence Thomas when he supported California’s right to medical marijuana laws:

Gonzales V. Raich

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

Brilliant! Particularly section II.A:

'The majority holds that Congress may regulate intrastate cultivation and possession of medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause, because such conduct arguably has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority’s decision is further proof that the “substantial effects” test is a “rootless and malleable standard” at odds with the constitutional design. Morrison, supra, at 627 (Thomas, J., concurring).

'The majority’s treatment of the substantial effects test is rootless, because it is not tethered to either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce, not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce–any more than Congress may regulate activities that do not fall within, but that affect, the subjects of its other Article I powers. Lopez, supra, at 589 (Thomas, J., concurring). Whatever additional latitude the Necessary and Proper Clause affords, supra, at 9—10, the question is whether Congress’ legislation is essential to the regulation of interstate commerce itself–not whether the legislation extends only to economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Supra, at 4; ante, at 5 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).

'The majority’s treatment of the substantial effects test is malleable, because the majority expands the relevant conduct. By defining the class at a high level of generality (as the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana), the majority overlooks that individuals authorized by state law to manufacture and possess medical marijuana exert no demonstrable effect on the interstate drug market. Supra, at 7—8. The majority ignores that whether a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce–and thus comes within Congress’ reach on the majority’s approach–can turn on a number of objective factors, like state action or features of the regulated activity itself. Ante, at 6—7 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). For instance, here, if California and other States are effectively regulating medical marijuana users, then these users have little effect on the interstate drug trade.6

'The substantial effects test is easily manipulated for another reason. This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S., at 613 (“[T]hus far in our Nation’s history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature” (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the “ ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’ ”7 Ante, at 23 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster’s 3d). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8—9 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

'Moreover, even a Court interested more in the modern than the original understanding of the Constitution ought to resolve cases based on the meaning of words that are actually in the document. Congress is authorized to regulate “Commerce,” and respondents’ conduct does not qualify under any definition of that term.8 The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ ” ante, at 1, to “commercial” and “economic” activity, ante, at 20, and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” ante, at 23. Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.

'The majority’s rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively. Ante, at 15—16; Lopez, 514 U.S., at 573—574 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The interconnectedness of economic activity is not a modern phenomenon unfamiliar to the Framers. Id., at 590—593 (Thomas, J., concurring); Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 3 The Founders’ Constitution 259—260 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987). Moreover, the Framers understood what the majority does not appear to fully appreciate: There is a danger to concentrating too much, as well as too little, power in the Federal Government. This Court has carefully avoided stripping Congress of its ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it has casually allowed the Federal Government to strip States of their ability to regulate intrastate commerce–not to mention a host of local activities, like mere drug possession, that are not commercial.

'One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that “ ‘[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)). That is why today’s decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce–not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly “necessary and proper” to regulating interstate commerce.'

[patriot08]

Col Allen West; "I don't want to see America become like Zimbabwe where people don’t trust their electoral process. If we cannot trust the integrity of the voting system then we are no longer a free republic".

Col West has opened the door.

We must fight election fraud.

It falls on ‘We the People’.

There’s overwhelming evidence of fraud.- Here

SARAH PALIN speaks out on Twitter about massive Obama machine voter fraud:

>Sarah Palin News ‏@SarahPalinLinks Between suppression of the military vote and voter fraud, Obama stole another election. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46302 …DEMAND A RECOUNT! #VoterFraud

>Sarah Palin News ‏@SarahPalinLinks People need to stop pointing fingers within the GOP and investigate the Dems' massive voter fraud and suppression of the military vote.

MITT ROMNEY TWEETS ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD:

>MITT ROMNEY in 2012! ‏@PlanetRomney #tcot The Competent Conservative: Elections Have Not Yet Been Certified, Here’s What You Can Do:

>> These electi... http://bit.ly/Zzam8Y

Here

Excerpt from Mitt Romney's reference:

These elections are NOT certified yet. The only way to get this investigated, much less recounted or overturned, is through the Secretary of State of each of the five key states: Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. EVEN IF YOU ARE IN ANOTHER STATE you can help. But it won’t do any good to dilute our effort to challenge California or Michigan or other states. Until a major group gets involved to do more, here is the plan: Contact the Secretary of State of the state in question. See contact information below...

Read the rest- Here

The website,'Barack Obama Vote Fraud 2012' is keeping a running account of cases of voter fraud and what to do about it:

(Astonishing!) > Visit the site- Here
Sign this petition- Here

Another website:

Is There Enough Evidence of Voter Fraud To Merit a Recount? If you wish to add your voice, click here and sign the petition for a recount Here-

< Hannity and Col Allan West slam voter fraud Nov 12- Here

Photo of Ethiopians brought to Ohio voting stations by busload, 95% of whom did not speak English, and told to vote for Obama, straight Dem ticket- Here

Must watch videos!

VIDEO-- Programmer Testifies About Rigging Elections With Vote Counting- Here

VIDEO- Illegal Aliens Caught Voting and Stealing Elections In Florida In Vast Numbers- Here

VIDEO- MICHAEL SAVAGE: How Obama fixed the 2012 election- Here

VIDEO- Massive voter fraud discovered in April- Here

VIDEO- Whistle blower speaks out about voter fraud- Here

___________________________________________________

We can not wait for 2014 and 2016 to regroup and figure out new strategies. By then it will be too late. The Marxist/Muslim usurper will have completed his planned distruction of America. That's what people fail to understand.

We must act NOW.

Start with the election. If we let the Rats get away with this massive voter fraud, we're no better than a bananna republic.

We must keep digging and pounding him every day, in every way we can- phony birth certificate, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, his hidden life, records....

We are FReepers. We must fight!

Those who shrug and accept this atrocity without a fight are not worthy to be called Freepers!

Join us!! See thread, 'BARACK OBAMA FRAUD 2012- (MUST READ- MUST GO VIRAL!)' thread- Here

[CitizenUSA]

Why would I vote to outlaw pot in my state? I really don’t want it sold at Wal-Mart like produce. As a minimum, I’d want it controlled like alcohol.

With all the big government intrusions into our liberty, I find it amazing that some people are so focused on a crappy little weed. Of ALL the things going wrong, their #1 concern is getting high. Pathetic!

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Why would I vote to outlaw pot in my state? I really don’t want it sold at Wal-Mart like produce. As a minimum, I’d want it controlled like alcohol.

I assume that's how any legalization would work; I know the Washington referendum provided for licensing of producers, processors, and retailers.

[Louis Foxwell]

You have not met me.I am smart and I believe pot is the devil. And, yes, I smoked it for years.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

You have not met me.I am smart and I believe pot is the devil. And, yes, I smoked it for years.

So you admit one can have smoked pot for years and be smart. Good - that's more than some pot foes will do.

Why do you believe pot is the devil? Do you believe it should be illegal?

[CitizenUSA]

So why are you so focused on weed? Pot legalization is hardly the most pressing states rights issue, is it?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So why are you so focused on weed? Pot legalization is hardly the most pressing states rights issue, is it?

It's the only issue I'm aware of where a substantial fraction of FReepers are anti-states'-rights.

[Lady Jag]

Great post. Thanks for the links.

[GSWarrior]

This is an obvious thing for conservatives to jump on, states rights for legalizing marijuana,

Agreed, but many won't, and will clash with the conservatives who do.

It is in the best interest of the Democrat party for conservatives not to evolve on any social issue. It is in the best interest of the Democrat party for the Republicans to rip each other apart on these issues