On Trump and his administration policies

[OKTexas]

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

 

[Slade3200]

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

 

[OKTexas]

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

So I focus on one and proved you wrong. Agreed? So shall we move onto the next one?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I don't know enough about ANY of this to form a solid opinion. I do know that drugs are bad but I also know that the government is incompetent and one size fits all laws are absurd.

 

[OKTexas]

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

So I focus on one and proved you wrong. Agreed? So shall we move onto the next one?

Do you lie habitually or does it take effort? I've proved every point I made, you can run away, but it won't change that fact.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

 

[Slade3200]

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

Yeah, i'm a small government guy, and protecting personal freedoms on the side of what I consider right and wrong. You are the one advocating for locking up people with substance abuse problems. It was a stupid statement so lets just chalk that one up to another one of your non voluntary verbal diarrheas

 

[Slade3200]

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

So I focus on one and proved you wrong. Agreed? So shall we move onto the next one?

Do you lie habitually or does it take effort? I've proved every point I made, you can run away, but it won't change that fact.


.

Sorry bub. I deconstructed your DOMA argument and you pivoted to ACA, which I just deconstructed as well. Don't think you are fooling anybody when leave a discussion by pivoting to new arguments.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

 

[OKTexas]

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

So I focus on one and proved you wrong. Agreed? So shall we move onto the next one?

Do you lie habitually or does it take effort? I've proved every point I made, you can run away, but it won't change that fact.


.

Sorry bub. I deconstructed your DOMA argument and you pivoted to ACA, which I just deconstructed as well. Don't think you are fooling anybody when leave a discussion by pivoting to new arguments.

I never made an argument concerning DOMA, it had nothing to do with making faghadist marriage legal, that would be the Obergefell decision. You're not even smart enough to follow the conversation, I made that distinction earlier.


.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

Yeah, i'm a small government guy, and protecting personal freedoms on the side of what I consider right and wrong. You are the one advocating for locking up people with substance abuse problems. It was a stupid statement so lets just chalk that one up to another one of your non voluntary verbal diarrheas

Really, where did I say anything about people with a substance abuse problem. Find the quote, I'll wait.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

Not all drugs are the same. Example, allowing antibiotics to be purchased over the counter can create bacterial superbugs, and hybrids such as rock / crack cocaine which is highly and quickly addictive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it..

Do you ever consider the pros and cons of MJ's prohibition? MJ is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, medically; it's prohibition has created a massive black market, and put in jail and prisons non violent offenders at great cost to local and state budgets. Revenue from a well regulated and taxed state approval of recreational use will provide revenue for treatment to those who abuse Alcohol and other drugs.

BTW, I'm not a user of MJ, my experience with the drug during my college years wasn't exactly euphoric - it made me sleepy and hungry.

 

[Slade3200]

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

 

[Slade3200]

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

So I focus on one and proved you wrong. Agreed? So shall we move onto the next one?

Do you lie habitually or does it take effort? I've proved every point I made, you can run away, but it won't change that fact.


.

Sorry bub. I deconstructed your DOMA argument and you pivoted to ACA, which I just deconstructed as well. Don't think you are fooling anybody when leave a discussion by pivoting to new arguments.

I never made an argument concerning DOMA, it had nothing to do with making faghadist marriage legal, that would be the Obergefell decision. You're not even smart enough to follow the conversation, I made that distinction earlier.


.

Sorry if I'm not keeping up with all your back peddling, I'm addressing many of your points with specificity and you keep responding with evolving talking points. You don't need to resort to petty insults, grow up

 

[Slade3200]

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

Yeah, i'm a small government guy, and protecting personal freedoms on the side of what I consider right and wrong. You are the one advocating for locking up people with substance abuse problems. It was a stupid statement so lets just chalk that one up to another one of your non voluntary verbal diarrheas

Really, where did I say anything about people with a substance abuse problem. Find the quote, I'll wait.


.

You didn't, I apologize, I got you confused with BluesLegend who was saying that he wanted to see people with drug or alcohol problems thrown in jail with a mandatory sentence of 20 years. Sick huh?

 

[BluesLegend]

Would you like to know what federal enforcement could look like? Governors, State comptrollers and State SOSs going to jail as drug kingpins. Dispensary owners jailed, stores seized along with their profits and the personal assets. Growers jailed, land seized along with their profits and personal assets. And the whole bunch getting additional jail time and fines for money laundering, and then they move to the banks and credit card servicers for money laundering. Then Trump could use all that money to build his wall, LMAO.


.

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

Yeah, i'm a small government guy, and protecting personal freedoms on the side of what I consider right and wrong. You are the one advocating for locking up people with substance abuse problems. It was a stupid statement so lets just chalk that one up to another one of your non voluntary verbal diarrheas

Really, where did I say anything about people with a substance abuse problem. Find the quote, I'll wait.


.

You didn't, I apologize, I got you confused with BluesLegend who was saying that he wanted to see people with drug or alcohol problems thrown in jail with a mandatory sentence of 20 years. Sick huh?

I changed my mind, 25 years.

 

[Slade3200]

You dizzy yet from all the dodging and spinning and deflecting you're doing?

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

Yeah, i'm a small government guy, and protecting personal freedoms on the side of what I consider right and wrong. You are the one advocating for locking up people with substance abuse problems. It was a stupid statement so lets just chalk that one up to another one of your non voluntary verbal diarrheas

Really, where did I say anything about people with a substance abuse problem. Find the quote, I'll wait.


.

You didn't, I apologize, I got you confused with BluesLegend who was saying that he wanted to see people with drug or alcohol problems thrown in jail with a mandatory sentence of 20 years. Sick huh?

I changed my mind, 25 years.

I found a national geographic documentary on MJ. It reviews the drugs history and goes into tremendous detail on the medicinal benefits of the drug. Sounds like like pretty strong justification to legalize at least on a medical level. Whats this, I even have a LINK!