States Rights?
-
-
I have no use for christie. opportunistic fraud loudmouth.
-
Why would crime be a problem if it were freely distributed at a low cost? And the doses were controlled and safe? Heck the pillbillies could just stay home all day, never venture out into the public.
Human productivity, you're kidding about that one right?
WSS
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
Wasted people, bad things.
High people, art and Sheet. Or just nothing
-
This little thing called the civil war sort of put the kibosh on states' rights.
-
There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by
states. But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"
It's simple.
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
That is a very slippery slope, my friend.
We have a Republic, not a Democracy. Protecting 'minority' views, persuasions, etc. if what America is all about.
I like to see the Federal Drug Laws amended. I do not want to see 'Majority Rule' used as a broad brush.
-
If something is legal on a federal level, can a state make it illegal?
I am far from - even - being an armchair Attorney, never mind a Constitutional one.
I believe, though, Federal Law trumps States Laws.
Gip can, certainly, answer this question with much more velocity than can I.
-
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
-
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]
Like Reagan used to say - the States formed the Federal Government, not the other way around.
Thanks for the explicit law, Die, but we both know a State usurping the authority of the Federal Government ain't even going to happen. And I hate to use the word, "Never".
Sounds like a legal Catch-22 to me.
-
Jeff Sessions is a scumbag!
Republicans claim "states rights! leave the government out of my life!"
but will kow tow to this PoS... Shmuck him!Congress needs to step up and change the federal laws to reflect the views of the people that put them into office!
64% of Americans support pot legalization. but this fukwit wants to go after legal businesses??
I hope a piano falls from the sky and lands on Sessions and we can get a new AG..
-
Don't bogart that joint pot head!
-
Don't bogart that joint pot head!
Don't bogart that joint pot head!
Oh wow you called me a pot head!!! What ever shall I do?
Sorry i don't kow tow to out of touch nimrods like Jeff Sessions.. Must be nice being a sheep.. -
-
Say no to Jeff Sessions and his out-of-touch views on America..
-
obamao rules that allowed states to allow pot companies...
bah. Sessions just undid obaMao, your commie sombeitch hero, rules.
Let Federal Law ascertain the legitimacy of pot being as legal as alcohol, and
it's all fine. Leftist states are out of control.
-
obamao rules that allowed states to allow pot companies...
bah. Sessions just undid obaMao, your commie sombeitch hero, rules.
Let Federal Law ascertain the legitimacy of pot being as legal as alcohol, and
it's all fine. Leftist states are out of control.
obamao rules that allowed states to allow pot companies...
bah. Sessions just undid obaMao, your commie sombeitch hero, rules.
Let Federal Law ascertain the legitimacy of pot being as legal as alcohol, and
it's all fine. Leftist states are out of control.
Gimmie a Shmucking break with this "everything Obama did is bad" horseshit!
Why waste money and resources on legal pot shops and distributors when there are more problems in this country?I would love for the federal laws to be changed.. Congress needs to stop dragging their feet on this.. Shmucking incompetent Socksuckers!
-
The federal law is unjust and hasn't changed since 1937... Shmuck the federal law!
-
You republicans claim states rights, but only when it fits your agenda..
-
I hope they shut down and arrest everyone involved in this illegal operation. MAGA
-
I hope they shut down and arrest everyone involved in this illegal operation. MAGA
I hope they shut down and arrest everyone involved in this illegal operation. MAGA
Yeah let's shut down legal businesses and put more people out on the street...
That will 'Make America Great Again...'
Instead of going after black market dealers and suppliers..Might as well shut down pill farms too if we're gonna make a big fukin spectacle out of pot..
What a fukin joke...
-
You republicans claim states rights, but only when it fits your agenda..
You republicans claim states rights, but only when it fits your agenda..
you lefties cry about mmgw, but it's your pot companies that are far more dangerous to mmgw than our cows farting.
Just because it's the same subject and the same wailing:
1. Pot smoking goes into the air. In a bar, you don't absorb fumes from alcohol. You DO breathe in pot smoke.
2. So, booze - NO SMOKE. Pot...BIGTIME SMOKE. ya?
3. Therefore, going to a bar as a college student, have a beer, but some dumb butts are smoking pot, you don't care...
Until you fail the drug test when you go to get an important job to start your career.
4. Booze- no residual consequences for others breathing, pot - residual consequences for others breathing.
5. In the 60s, marijuana had a THC (the active ingredient that gets people high) level of 7 percent to 14 percent. The pot on the streets today has a THC level of 14 percent to 27 percent. That's the difference between drinking a six pack of beer and a six pack of whiskey. It is not the same thing.
6. https://www.livescience.com/42738-marijuana-vs-alcohol-health-effects.html
For marijuana, much of the concern is with young people who use the drug, because the drug interferes with the development of the brain while it is still maturing, Baler said. [10 Facts Every Parent Should Know About Their Teen's Brain]
Therefore, parents who drink a lot around their young kids, don't damage their kid's physical growth. Therefore, parents who smoke a lot of pot around their young kids....do.
7. https://www.livescience.com/24558-marijuana-effects.html
"In some cases, reported side effects of THC include elation, anxiety, tachycardia, short-term memory recall issues, sedation, relaxation, pain-relief and many more," said A.J. Fabrizio, a marijuana chemistry expert at Terra Tech Corp, a California agricultural company focused on local farming and medical cannabis.
Other effects, according to the NIH, include:
- Feelings of panic and fear (paranoia)
- Hallucinations
- Trouble concentrating
- Decreased ability to perform tasks that require coordination
- Decreased interest in completing tasks
When coming down from the high, users may feel depressed or extremely tired. While marijuana use produces a mellow experience (users are sometimes referred to as "stoners") for some, it can heighten agitation, anxiety, insomnia and irritability, according to the NIH.
When marijuana use begins in the teen years, it can have a significant impact on brain development, including decreased brain activity, fewer neural fibers in certain areas and a smaller than average hippocampus, which controls learning and memory functions.
According to a 2014 Northwestern Medicine study of teen marijuana users, memory-related structures in the brain appeared to shrink, a possible signs of a decrease in neurons. These abnormalities remained two years after the teen stopped using marijuana, indicating that the drug has long-term effects and look similar to brains of schizophrenics. Those who started using marijuana after 21 generally do not experience the same type of brain abnormalities as those who started using the drug earlier.
Long-term users report that they sometimes have trouble thinking clearly, organizing their thoughts, multitasking and remembering things. Sustained marijuana use can also slow reaction times in some individuals.
Another study by the University of Montreal published in the journal Development and Psychopathology in 2016 found similar results after researching almost 300 students. Those that started smoking around age 14 did worse on some cognitive tests than non-smokers. The study found that pot smokers also have a higher school dropout rate. Those that waited to start around age 17 did not seem to have the same impairments.
8.
A 2017 study by the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia found that those who used marijuana were 26 percent more likely to have a stroke than those who did not use marijuana. Those studied were also 10 percent more likely to have developed heart failure.
Marijuana can also raise heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent shortly after smoking and the effect can last up to three hours, according to NIDA. Marijuana also can reduce sperm production in men and disrupts a woman's menstrual cycle, according to NIDA.
9. Therefore, liberal knee jerkie emotional outbursts can be attributed , in part, to pot smoking.
10, Last, but not least - is the flaming hypocrisy of those liberal wingnuts that want to legalize pot smoking. Now, all liberals whine about wanting pot legalized. These are the same wingnuts who are frightened that pollution and cows farting is destroying our planet with mmgw.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/20/cannabis-climate-change-fossil-fuels
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060036287
GET THIS:
the algore hippie dippie sticks want us to lower our home temps, stop running gas engines, and pay for cows farting and driving our cars. YET...
http://grist.org/living/everything-you-need-to-know-about-pots-environmental-impact/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login