Posted on 07/27/2011 10:42:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
Where is this prohibited in the Constitution? Answer: It isn't.
Of course not. I never said otherwise. I simply called it what it is.
Where in the Constitution is the SCOTUS granted its power as final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning? Answer: Nowhere. John Marshall simply seized that power when the opportunity presented itself. The Constitution died that day.
You may comfort yourself that we aren't (yet) under the bootheel of "a totalitarian, communist state", if you like. It matters little. What we are under is the arbitrary rule-at-whim tyranny of the completely unaccountable. That it could get worse (and probably will), and that other countries have (had) it worse, is a discussion of degree, not kind.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land", applies to more than just the imperial presidency.
Very similar to the Mafia. That’s government.
It's for the children. /sarcasm
See Brutus' 11th and 12th essays. For the pro side, see Federalist...IIRC it's 78. Hamilton.
The reason the plant is so effective vs. synthetic THC is that it is impossible to synthesize the same structure in a lab. See the papers on synthetic THC by Dr. Alex Shulgin
Unfortunately, research and development of this plant is still prohibited nearly worldwide. Very few chemists in the US are allowed and the government only allows those few to work with government-produced cannabis (garbage).
One day people will wake up. I am confident that cannabis will yield far better meds than opium.
There's no question the court has gained latitude over time. That's the nature of the government under this Constitution. Each precedent creates the foundation for the next, and so on. None of this is a surprise:
When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any controul?Brutus, 31 January 1788
Nonsense.
That was well understood at the time, by proponents and opponents of the Constitition.
Now you want to argue legislative intent, when earlier you rejected it? ROFL!!!
It should not be hard to recognize that our government is simply out of control. That all four branches (the professional bureaucracy is effectively a fourth branch) regularly and routinely seize powers not granted to them. That they are functionally a tyranny.
Even the worst of the Federalists did not (overtly) intend to create an arbitrary, capricious, unlimited, and unaccountable government ... yet that is precisely what we have. Delegated authority is irrelevant to it; seized power is the rule of the day. It's tyranny, even if some folks are unwilling to call it that. Even your own arguments on this thread support that fact.
"Gained latitude"?
That's a really soft and fuzzy way of saying "seized power". Trouble is, those who seize power aren't particularly soft and fuzzy.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Incorrect. I said nothing of anyone's intent.
Is the Controlled Substance Act a federal law? Yes.
Does it criminalize marijuana? Yes.
Does federal law trump contradictory state law? Yes.
End of story.
Wow. i haven't seen the modern fixation n the absolute worship of the law stated quite so succintly in a while.
Thanks.
Violent crime has plunged in CA since medical marijuana was started in 1996.¹ According to your questionable and unsupported claim, that shouldn't have happened.
Your evidence for increased crime is...?
______________________________________
¹http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
Just stating the facts. Ignore them at your own risk.
Duh! So ... why try to invent constitutional fig-leaves to cover its naked power grabbing? Why pretend that the interstate commerce clause authorizes controlling "substances"? Why not simply recognize that neither the Congress, nor the courts, nor the executive are granted any such authority? Why not simply recognize that they have baldly seized the power to do it, and nobody is in any position to say them "nay"?
You're quoting the anti-federalists, who more or less predicted that outcome. Why not say "they were right"?
I'm not pretending. That's the law.
Why not simply recognize that neither the Congress, nor the courts, nor the executive are granted any such authority?
Because they have the authority. Article 3 gives the SCOTUS the power to interpret the law. And that's that.
Why not simply recognize that they have baldly seized the power to do it, and nobody is in any position to say them "nay"?
Actually, the people could pass an amendment saying NAY anytime they want. But most people like it the way it is.
You're quoting the anti-federalists, who more or less predicted that outcome. Why not say "they were right"?
I say it all the time. But see, they didn't predict that the Constitution would be violated. They predicted that the Constitution ALLOWED such expanding power. They saw that implied powers, combined with an unaccountable supreme judiciary, was certain to lead to ever-expanding power.
In short, the antifederalists argued that the Constitution was a horribly flawed document that should have been rejected on the grounds that it granted virtually unbounded power to the national government. I agree.
No, it's the whimsical, arbitrary, unaccountable ruling of the SCOTUS. That doesn't mean goons with MP-5s won't enforce that. It just means that when they do, they're enforcing the edicts of tyrants.
Article 3 gives the SCOTUS the power to interpret the law.
So says the SCOTUS. How ... convenient.
Actually, the people could pass an amendment saying NAY anytime they want.
ROFL!!!!
I say it all the time.
Good. Keep it up.
But see, they didn't predict that the Constitution would be violated.
If so, then they were wrong. It's violated routinely. Drug laws are a prime example.
They predicted that the Constitution ALLOWED such expanding power.
That's the least of its flaws.
the antifederalists argued that the Constitution was a horribly flawed document that should have been rejected on the grounds that it granted virtually unbounded power to the national government.
I don't agree. The Constitution does not grant such powers. It's worse than that. The Constitution offers absolutely no way to prevent the national government seizing powers it was not granted.
You contradict yourself. Why is it good to say the antifeds were right when you disagree with them? Makes no sense. It’s because you’re trying to square the circle.
When society rejects the government, the government has lost legitimacy. The battle becomes, as you point out, one of brute force and wills.
A person or group can be right about some things, and wrong about others. A person or group can see disaster looming, but be wrong in some respects as to the complete nature and extent of the disaster.
So ... the antifeds were correct that the proposed Constitution was a disaster waiting to happen. I argue that it was worse than they thought. Not a hard concept to follow, and requires no squaring of circles. In fact, in your efforts to find Constitutional authority for acts of government which completely lack such, you appear to me to be trying to square the circle.
yeah, well I hope Huck reads this. I think that is who you meant to address it to. I get it. He doesn’t.
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.