Alaska Libertarians file suit over rejected hemp initiative

Libertarian Party web site ^ | 17 February 2003

[CounterCounterCulture]

OK, kids. Play nice now...

[xrp]

The Industrial Uses of Hemp

[First Amendment]

Too bad they had to mix legalizing industrial hemp with smokeable weed.

[Nick Thimmesch]

m

[First Amendment]

m??

[CounterCounterCulture]

I think we're playing hangman...

_ _ _    _ _ m _ ?

[Drammach]

Too bad they had to mix legalizing industrial hemp with smokeable weed.

Hey, at least they're up front about it. All or nothing.

If they had restricted the issue to Medical MJ or to Industrial Hemp, the WOD fascists would all accuse them of "creating a backdoor to legalization of all drugs".

I personally see nothing wrong with legalizing Marijuana.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

I think we're playing hangman...

_ _ _    _ _ m _ ?

H o t    L a m b

O l d    C o m b 

T o o    D u m b

W a r    C a m p

W e t    D a m p

B i g    L u m p 

H o t    D a m n

R e d    L a m p

O l d    B o m b

[CounterCounterCulture]

Nope (x9) ;-)

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

lol darn

[Boot Hill]

I'm not sure how many picked up on the irony and hypocrisy of the Libertarian position in the above story, so let me highlight it for those who missed it.

They claim their initiative to legalize pot commerce should have been placed on the ballot. They cite as authority a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution should overrule state law and thereby force the state to allow non-registered persons to gather signatures for state-wide initiatives.

Here's the hubris and duplicity...

In order to get their initiative on the ballot, the Libertarians are running to court to argue that whenever provisions of the U.S. Constitution conflict with state law, that the Supremacy Clause controls and the Constitution wins. "Tenth Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' Tenth Amendment!"

(You read that right, folks. That is the LP, the Party of Principle, arguing for the supremacy of federal rights over state rights!!!)

But if they are ever successful in passing their initiative to engage in the marijuana trade and the DEA objects, the Libertarians will be the first ones running back to the same court to argue the opposite, that whenever provisions of the U.S. Constitution conflict with state law, that the Tenth Amendment controls and state law wins. "Supremacy Clause? We don't need no stinkin' Supremacy Clause!"

Well, which one is it, Libertarians? Does the Supremacy Clause trump the Tenth Amendment, or not? Or does it just depend on the meaning of "is"?

--Boot Hill

[Roscoe]

Doublethink is a Libertarian specialty.

[Kevin Curry]

Well, which one is it, Libertarians? Does the Supremacy Clause trump the Tenth Amendment, or not?

It depends on which interpretation puts dope in their pockets the f'ustest with the mostest.

[Kevin Curry]

BTW, I believe it was the Alaska Libertarian Party, those guardians of limited government--those champions of the beleaguered taxpayer--who, as part of their decriminalization effort in 1998, tried to sneak past a provision requiring a taxpayer paid "study" into whether dopers should receive reparations from the public till.

[Cultural Jihad]

Then, again, no one ever accused the self-absorbed Libertarians of caring anything at all about the Constitution. It hardly gets a mention at all in their moral-liberal platform.

[A2J]

In the lawsuit, FHA attorney Ken Jacobus argued that initiative backers filed enough signatures to qualify the measure, even though they failed to follow all of the state's record-keeping rules.

Paw prints from seals, bears, and wolves don't qualify as "signatures."

Good try, though, dopeheads.

[A2J]

Doublethink is a Libertarian specialty.

More like "Doobiethink."

[Nick Thimmesch]

No, no, no: just lazy so the "m" key is nearest to posting keys. Sorry.

[Roscoe]

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2003/02/03/news/opinion/opinion3.txt

[Roscoe]

The LOADies have predictable priorities.