Biden's Attorney General Threatens People With Prison

[Rigby5]

If they were bogus why did Republicans admit that Trump did in fact do what he was acused of doing?

Never heard anyone with any knowledge or fact about either of the impeachments.
But I did hear lots of criticism about not gracefully admitting defeat in the election.
Who do you think had anything on Trump over the impeachment?
I read as much as I could, and it was all very biased and rather emotional baggage like Vindman.
Oddly enough, ever since they sided with the Nazis in WWII, I never liked or trusted any Ukrainians, and that seems to still hold true.

 

[Rigby5]

The republican senate was never going to convict Trump, no matter how much evidence, or how guilty he was. Remember in the second impeachment they said Trump was guilty, but couldn't be convicted because he was no longer president.

No one ever said Trump was guilty over any basis.
We ALL saw and heard the call.
All he did was ask for a legal and necessary investigation.
To NOT investigate the fact it appears Hunter was getting US foreign aid kickbacks, would be criminal.

 

[meaner gene]

Go read the constitution and what the founder wrote on the side about their intentions.
The 9th and 10th amendments are very clear in that the federal government can ONLY do what it is explicitly authorized to do in the Constitution.
That means no BATF, no DEA, no TSA, no Homeland Security, and even things like FDA can only be advisory.
There is no "opinion" involved.
It is very clear English written by the founders.

You missed The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power

 

[Rigby5]

You are confusing department policy for laws.

I don't really like Hillary, but I think you are right that Hillary could do whatever she wanted for email.
I would bet the State Department email is even less secure, since thousands of contractors likely get access over the decades.

 

[Rigby5]

You missed The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power

I disagree.
The commerce clause simply allows the federal government to prevent any one state from interfering with the commerce of another state.

{...

Commerce Clause​

Overview​

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States.

"Dormant" Commerce Clause​

The “Dormant Commerce Clause" refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. In West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994), the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts state tax on milk products, as the tax impeded interstate commercial activity by discriminating against non-Massachusetts
...}

In no way does that authorize any product that the federal government is not specifically authorized to restrict, like firearms, drugs, etc.
If it was the TSA you had in mind, you might have a point there.
I don't see why states could not do it better instead, but at least the TSA is dealing with interstate commerce.

 

[meaner gene]

In no way does that authorize any product that the federal government is not specifically authorized to restrict, like firearms, drugs, etc.

Yet the supreme court upheld the federal marijuana law applied to someone growing within california for personal use, using the commerce clause giving the federal government that right.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

 

[meaner gene]

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes

A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Scalia.

The opinion began by pointing out that the respondents did not dispute that Congress had the power to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

 

[Rigby5]

Yet the supreme court upheld the federal marijuana law applied to someone growing within california for personal use, using the commerce clause giving the federal government that right.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

Yes I know that the court are corrupt and lying.
They have been for a long time.
One only has to read the Dred Scott Decision, to know that.
Clearly the court was wrong because in state production and use has zero effect on interstate commerce.
And governments can never have rights, only power, achieved though delegated authority.
Governments are always corrupt to some degree, but this does not reach to the level of abuse where rebellion is necessary, yet.

 

[Rigby5]

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes

A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Scalia.

The opinion began by pointing out that the respondents did not dispute that Congress had the power to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

But I most certainly DO dispute that congress has any power to control or ban anything, except foreign imports.
They are not authorized by the constitution to control or ban anything at all otherwise.

 

[justinacolmena]

A crime is what federal law defines.

Go back to California. Crimes are not victimless.
Read "Of crimes against the person" and "Of crimes against property" etc.

Various drug crimes belong in both categories because drug abuse and drug dealing harm persons and property.

The three elements of crime.

1. Mens rea
2. Actus reus
3. Noxa rea

You've almost always got that third element, people wouldn't be complaining about crime if they weren't being harmed by it, but the harm has to be proven in court along with the other two elements, because otherwise you have de minimus violations of law that do not result in any real harm.

Obviously there is no conception of "victim's rights" either without establishing the noxa rea.

 

[AntonToo]

You are right. There is no way I could prove Joe Biden’s corruption. The problem is it will never be investigated and even if it is the evidence will be whitewashed away.

Joe is a BIG Swamp critter. He is safe from any future prosecution for his corruption. Like Hillary he can do any damn thing he wants and waltz away scot-free.

Yea yea, cool story bro.

Comeback when you've actually got facts to back it up. Because without that you are just another wingnut running your mouth.

 

[meaner gene]

Clearly the court was wrong because in state production and use has zero effect on interstate commerce.

You didn't read any of the cases from Wickard v Filburn onward. The marijuana case clearly said that it established local acts that bypass interstate commerce, still effect interstate commerce.

 

[meaner gene]

One only has to read the Dred Scott Decision, to know that.

Actually if you actually read Dred Scott, you realize that the decision was affirming the constitutions intentions on upholding of slavery.

 

[justinacolmena]

You didn't read any of the cases from Wickard v Filburn onward. The marijuana case clearly said that it established local acts that bypass interstate commerce, still effect interstate commerce.

So if Marijuana is "legal" then why are guns still "illegal" when they do not affect interstate commerce?

 

[meaner gene]

But I most certainly DO dispute that congress has any power to control or ban anything, except foreign imports.
They are not authorized by the constitution to control or ban anything at all otherwise.

Except the commerce clause says the opposite. It gives congress control of commerce "between" the several states. Article I

 

[meaner gene]

So if Marijuana is "legal" then why are guns still "illegal" when they do not affect interstate commerce?

The USSC said that marijuana isn't legal (federal law) even if a state makes it legal.

 

[justinacolmena]

The USSC said that marijuana isn't legal (federal law) even if a state makes it legal.

People smoke Marijuana all the time and they don't get caught, but even mention a gun they put you in prison the rest of your life on mere suspicion of possessing a firearm.

 

[Rigby5]

Go back to California. Crimes are not victimless.
Read "Of crimes against the person" and "Of crimes against property" etc.

Various drug crimes belong in both categories because drug abuse and drug dealing harm persons and property.

The three elements of crime.

1. Mens rea
2. Actus reus
3. Noxa rea

You've almost always got that third element, people wouldn't be complaining about crime if they weren't being harmed by it, but the harm has to be proven in court along with the other two elements, because otherwise you have de minimus violations of law that do not result in any real harm.

Obviously there is no conception of "victim's rights" either without establishing the noxa rea.

I think you are going off track on details that only matter when it comes to deciding guilt and assessing sentencing.
When it comes to punishment, we want to differentiate between having harmed a person vs property, but the reality is the rights of the person who owns the property is the source of justification for there being a law against destruction or theft of property.
Similarly intent only has to do with the likeliness of repetition, and not the source of legal authority.

The point really is that government is not a source of any legal authority at all, in any way.
In a democratic republic, only the defense of inherent individual rights is the source of any legal authority, and laws like against drugs, do not defend the rights of anyone. Instead they arbitrarily are nanny laws, attempting to proscribe actions done by oneself, to oneself, and clearly that is totally beyond the authority of government. There is no way government can ever have that authority because there is no individual who has that right to delegate.

The trouble with our legal system is that since it is derived from Roman origins, it has no problem at all with arbitrary authoritarian edicts, which I consider totally illegal.
If you can not find a need for a law to protect the inherent rights of others, then the law is without legal justification or authority, and is illegal.

 

[meaner gene]

People smoke Marijuana all the time and they don't get caught, but even mention a gun they put you in prison the rest of your life on mere suspicion of possessing a firearm.

That's obviously nothing but a hyperbolic rant.
The average sentence for all felon in possession of a firearm offenders was 64 months.

 

[Rigby5]

The USSC said that marijuana isn't legal (federal law) even if a state makes it legal.

And clearly the SCOTUS was wrong.
Pot has to always be outside of federal jurisdiction, since the 9th and 10th amendments clearly say that implied jurisdiction through the commerce clause, is illegal.