Posted on 01/05/2018 9:59:13 AM PST by Magnatron
Scott Adams has an interesting take on Sessions' recent announcement regarding federal pot laws enforcement. It's interesting on a couple of levels. It implies that Sessions is doing that 4D chess thing that the pro-Sessions people like to think, and if that's so, it makes me wonder (and desperately hope) that the Freep Sessions-cheerleading-section are right about his ability to work at a higher level than we Never-Sessions people can appreciate.
...but I dream.
Beautiful.
You love Big Government. We get it.
While not specifically articulated in the Constitution, so many things like this are interpreted to be covered under the General Welfare clause, and/or Commerce Clause. The latter is used overwhelmingly on so many issues.
> If you wish to repeal a bad law, enforce it exactly as written.
Exactly. Congress will have to act.
If you wish to repeal a bad law, enforce it exactly as written.
“The left thinks there is no 10th Amendment— Fine!! Suck it up butter cup.”
And now you’ve joined them. Another one rolls over for big fedgov.
No, there are three branches of our government.
Congress passed a law the states disagree with.
The matter must be settled by a decision by the SCOTUS
That is the Trump administration intent
That is an awfully broad brush you are painting with...
Scott Adams is delusional.
Nanny-state force preference noted.
“While not specifically articulated in the Constitution, so many things like this are interpreted to be covered under the General Welfare clause, and/or Commerce Clause.”
Is that in keeping with the original meaning of the Constitution, in your opinion?
What are you talking about? The shameful Raich decision already settled that.
FReep, both a noun and verb according to Mr Adams.
Has Webster’s or Scrabble recognized the concept of FReepdom?
How about the definition of “zot?”
“N00b?”
5.56mm
> Crush narcotic sales!!
That will rightly cause an uproar in congress, but that is exactly what should happen , rather than the current wink and nod nonsense.
Actually, Congress didn't pass a law to ban marijuana. It passed a law to allow the executive branch to decide what substances to ban. The authority to reschedule marijuana belongs to the President. He can do it at will.
This is incorrect. The federal government may not force states to enforce it's laws.
Amen. That’s what I am talking about!! Enforce the law or change the law — whether it is immigration or WEED!! All I can say is these pot shop “10th amendment” advocates can tell it to the Federal Judge!!
> Federal Anti-pot laws are not bad laws.
Many would disagree. Many states disagree, and when put to a vote of the people the result has most often been a choice for legalization.
> Federal Anti-pot laws are not bad laws.
Many would disagree. Many states disagree, and when put to a vote of the people the result has most often been a choice for legalization.
Nonsense. For example, vote Republican, and I voted for legalization here in deep blue Massachusetts. It's definitely not a mutually exclusive choice.
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.