Pot Case Jurors Call For New Trial

Sacramento Bee ^ | Feb. 5, 2003 | Claire Cooper

[Lurker]

Actually I could. I don't like what the OJ jury did. I certainly wouldn't have done it, but that's what the Law states.

Nice red herring BTW.

Once again, you're the one espousing Federal judges breaking the Law because (this time) you like the outcome.

Once again, this Judge should be impeached immediately for lying to a duly empaneled jury.

L

[tacticalogic]

My bet is that these jurors and their families have received hundreds of threats

Really? How much? Empty bluffs are easy when there's no money on the table.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...defense sought to introduce the evidence...

Provisions of state law that conflict with federal law are invalid. Prohibited by 6th section of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Drug laws are pre-empted by Federal law.

They wanted a test case. --- They got one. The poor guy will be in jail for a long time finding out what happens when you get a test case.

Be careful what you ask for. --- You may get it.

[Britton J Wingfield]

.S. We are NOT "about to go to war." We are about to have a President, once again, violate his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" by waging war without a Congressional declaration of war:

If we are not going to war, then how is Bush violating his oath by waging war?

Is he violating his oath by subverting the constitution in order to maintain prohibition?

[Mark Bahner]

"Provisions of state law that conflict with federal law are invalid. Prohibited by 6th section of the U.S. Constitution."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X to the U.S. Constitution.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...by waging war without a Congressional declaration of war:

The court ruled that there is a legal declaration of war.

From the Padilla case:

The critics are certainly correct that we must remain eternally vigilant about our civil liberties. But we are in a period of crisis, a crisis legally the equivalent of a declared war. Formal declarations of war are an anachronism--no country has issued a true declaration of war in more than half-a-century, and such instruments were historically necessary only to initiate major acts of international aggression, which is now illegal under the U.N. Charter. But the Supreme Court held as early as 1800, in Bas v. Tingy, that Congress could "authorize war" by joint resolution without framing it as a formal declaration of war. Last Sept. 14, Congress did precisely that by a combined vote of 516-1.

[tacticalogic]

It never ceases to amaze me how we are about to go to war and pot is the number one issue for some people.

It works for John Walters.

[general_re]

Provisions of state law that conflict with federal law are invalid. Prohibited by 6th section of the U.S. Constitution.

The notion of mens rea requires that the defendant actually intended to violate the law. Thus, an honestly held belief that the law sanctioned his activity is, by definition, exculpatory. Or the federal law represents an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond any reasonable interpretation. Take your pick.

[Ken H]

The poor guy will be in jail for a very long time.

From the article, "The judge said he may keep Rosenthal out of jail permanently because his case is so unusual."

[Mark Bahner]

"If we are not going to war, then how is Bush violating his oath by waging war?"

He is violating his oath, because he isn't first receiving Congressional authorization to wage war. (Read Ron Paul's commentary.)

"Is he violating his oath by subverting the constitution in order to maintain prohibition?"

Yes, G.W. Bush has violated his oath of office from Day 1, just like every president of the 20th century.

He signed Campaign Finance Reform, he signed authorization of federal money for education, energy, agriculture, ownership of federal lands (outside of the District of Columbia and federal military bases)...the list is practically endless.

[Britton J Wingfield]

OK, just doing a consistency check :)

Lots of people like to cherry-pick on here.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X to the U.S. Constitution.

One time I was in an administrative hearing and I commented to my attorney "that's not fair"

He said "what does fair have to do with it. You forget that it is a court of law, not a court of justice. If you want justice, change the law. "

Sad as it may seem, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. They have ruled on federal law pre-empting state law. We may not like it, but this guy is going to jail.

[Mark Bahner]

"Or the federal law represents an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond any reasonable interpretation. Take your pick."

I will pick that. (Because that argument also affects over $1.5 trillion of unconstitutional federal spending.)

Power to The People! :-)

[Dan(9698)]

The state law was that he could posses no more than 100 plants.

He had more, so he intended to violate the state law also. The Federal law is that he could have no plants.

He knew that. When he intended to break the state law, he certainly could not use that same provision as a "safe harbor" showing he intended to abide the law.

[JudyB1938]

The "norm" has already been established. Succeeding presidents must work with the system they inherit. The sad part is that they are "working" us right into the NWO and loss of our country.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing though if we think of it in this light ... to delay the End Times is to delay the return of Our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ.

But it IS a bad thing if we don't fight evil until the End.

[Mark Bahner]

"The court ruled that there is a legal declaration of war."

Big deal. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress can force the PGA to allow Casey Martin to ride in a golf cart.

The courts (including the Supreme Court) shamelessly and repeatedly violate the Constitution. Tell me something I don't already know.

"But we are in a period of crisis, a crisis legally the equivalent of a declared war. Formal declarations of war are an anachronism..."

#&$% law-breaking twits! "The Constitution and Rule of Law is an anachronism."

As Clint Eastwood would say, "Grrr...wonderful!"

[Ken H]

Sad as it may seem, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Agreed.

Is Federal government involvement in intrastate drug policies proper according to your philosophy of the Constitution?

[Mark Bahner]

"The "norm" has already been established. Succeeding presidents must work with the system they inherit."

This is a conservative's mentality. It's why I don't consider myself a conservative. G.W. Bush took an OATH, Judy! If he knew he wasn't going to follow it, he never should have taken it.

"But it IS a bad thing if we don't fight evil until the End."

That's more like it! :-)

[philman_36]

What part of the Supremacy Clause and the Civil War, in which over 500,000 were killed to enforce it, did Rosenthal miss?

Civil War American Casualties: est. 620,000 (360,000 Union, 260,000, Confederate)
You're a little short in your "estimation".

[Mark Bahner]

"Sad as it may seem, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

"Agreed."

Complete BS! The Constitution means what it's writers clearly wrote! The fact that none of the Supreme Court judges can read doesn't change the Constitution.