Sessions, Pot, The UNITED S Of A, & State Laws That Are Illegal

[theDoctorisIn]

No. The laws prohibiting folks from smoking pot are illegal. The "War on Drugs" is illegal, and is OBVIOUSLY the illicit rationalization for violating the rights of thousands of US citizens annually.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — U.S. Constitution. Amend. IX​

People own themselves; they are themselves sovereign--the primary sovereign from which all sovereign powers of the Federal Government are derived and delegated--and they retain the right to smoke dope.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." — U.S. Constitution. Amend. X​

Outlawing smoking dope cannot be a power that the people can delegate; they have the right to smoke dope, and the government is prohibited from denying or disparaging rights retained by the people. Outlawing pot is repugnant to the rights retained by the people; it's repugnant to the Constitution.

States can certainly declare that, within their jurisdictions, smoking dope is legal according to the (legal, constitutional) constraints each State considers appropriate--particularly in the face of Federal prohibitions.

And since such prohibition is repugnant to the Constitution,

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." — John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802​

Sessions is wrong, and (broken clocks, blind squirrels, and such notwithstanding) California, Colorado and all the other states that "legalized" pot are right.

Finally.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

States don't pay taxes. People do.

Oh, well then why do states collect them?

States collect state taxes. Then they keep them. They don't pay those taxes to anyone else.

Incorrect. States collect .local. City. State, and federal taxes ie on cigarettes, gasoline, and guns and ammo. What if they decideded they did not have to comply with federal law and forward the federal taxes. Would that be okay wit ewe?

No, they don't. The IRS collects those taxes from the retailer, quarterly. The state has nothing to do with it.

It's IRS Form 720, if you're curious.

 

[OKTexas]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

Even though the states violating federal law need to have their dicks slapped by the DOJ, Sessions shouldn't be wasting his time on this shit. He really needs to be working on locking up the previous administration for their crimes instead.

What makes you think it would be a waste of time, the could confiscate billions in illegal profits and assets from these State run drug cartels.


.

Perhaps that's the motivation behind Session's new war on pot: The government always wants a cut of the action. I'm not defending it or complaining about it because either way, I don't smoke the stuff.

Hey, if they don't want to pay the band, don't go to the dance. The feds can go after the grow operations, stores and State officials that conspire to violate federal law and launder illegal proceeds. Plus they can go after the cash all of them made. I hope Sessions does just that. Let regressives get a full measure of what a post constitutional US feels like.


.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oh look, another conservative who pretends the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist when it doesn't work for him.

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, it has everything to do with:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The supreme court expanded that power to extend to all commerce and some activities that never involve commerce but may have some minute effect on it.

The Commerce Clause deals with interstate commerce, which does not apply to states that have legalized marijuana, so yes, it is very much a Tenth Amendment issue. Furthermore, conservatives have generally never been big fans of using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to expand federal power, but here you guys are justifying that practice when it comes to an action you disagree with.

 

[OKTexas]

Fed law trumps state law. I do think sessions is biased cause he is about lazy as fuck when it comes to his job. THIS is what is important?
Fed gov shouldnt have a say in pot anyways. You know, the Constitution and all. Pretty sure the COTUS trumps fed law

The supreme court trumps the Constitution, ask any regressive.


.

Tell us about you regressives.

We liberals believe that the Constitution trumps Federal law- and that the Supreme Court enforces the Constitution.

Why do you believe that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution?

Poor naive thing, it's the supreme court that gave the feds the power, in violation of the commerce clause, at FDRs insistence. You might want to do a bit of reading on the history of the commerce clause.


.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Use of legalized marijuana threatened as Sessions rescinds Obama-era directive that eased federal enforcement

Ok. So there's a conflict. Some states say pot is legal. The fed says it's not. Yet we are the UNITED states of America, bound under federal laws on certain vital issues to preserve the cohesion of the Union. Like it or not, narcotics are part of those federally regulated ideas. Presumably someone thought that it might not be good for productivity as a nation, nor as a strong citizenry to all be laced out on mind-altering drugs; easy pickin's for enemies internally and abroad.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. Likewise we have federal laws about immigration, collecting taxes, child trafficking, tampering with the mail, etc. etc.

What California, Colorado and all the other states that "legalized" pot did wrong was: they disobeyed federal law. Let's take CA as an example. There, some folks got a petition together to get an initiative on the ballot. The petition from there goes to Sacramento for approval for inclusion on the ballot. The minute a petition suggesting breaking federal law passed their desks in Sacramento, that's where the idea was mandated to die. Just because those people decided to let the farce continue, doesn't make it any more legal than if CA decided to vote on whether or not illegal aliens can become citizens without due process...or if CA decided on its own that the fed couldn't collect taxes there. Or if CA voted that the fed could no longer have military bases in CA.

The initiative "legalizing" pot is an illegal initiative. It is null and void upon its face. It was mandated to have never gotten beyond Sacramento's process of sifting through legal and illegal initiatives. That's where the failure was. Ignorance is no excuse. Not even in Sacramento. They are mandated to follow the law.

What should have been done by these states who wanted legal pot, or any other federal statute revoked for some new trend, would have been to lobby Congress to change the federal listing of pot as Schedule 1 first, then downgrade it to a "legal" substance for recreation. But they jumped the gun and did it wrong. There seems to be a lot of that going on lately where states suddenly adopt some trend, usually some social trend from CA, and then force all other 49 states to abide by changing the law from the bottom up, without Congress' (the other 49 states') input.

This is a VERY bad precedent to set. It threatens the Union when rogue states force other states without their representation, to adopt repugnant ideas or laws without having a single voice of say in the process. Think about it. Sometimes even just one rogue judge in one rogue state can radically change longstanding social mores of all 50 states without their input or say, outside the Constitution and Congress, if the appeals process is oiled well enough for that rogue decision....

How Does California's Ballot Measure Process Work?

The proponents must submit the draft proposal to the Attorney General’s Office where the public can view it online and comment on it. This comment period lasts 30 days, and the proponents have five days following the end of the comment period to amend the proposal.....Within 50 days of submission to the Attorney General, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance conduct a joint analysis on the proposal’s expected impact on state and local revenues, as well as estimated costs. The Attorney General’s Office uses this analysis to write the title and summary for the measure, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State and included on the signature gathering petitions.

So the CA AG was remiss in allowing a federally-illegal proposal to go forward in the first place! I think this was Kamala Harris who allowed this illegal ballot measure to proceed. Those of you who invested tons and now stand to lose tons because you just realized pot is federally illegal, can thank Kamala Harris for leading you astray.

I try to admit when I'm wrong, and I was a big supporter of Sessions for AG.

This shit, though, in my opinion, could potentially turn into a piss poor use of federal resources to shut down a cash cow industry pedaling a substance that is substantially less dangerous than numerous substances that aren't illegal, not to mention that decriminalization of a substance that's so insanely easy for literally anyone with a closet to manufacture significantly diminishes the money going into black market purchases that often financially benefit the cartels to the south. Gotta admit to the beginnings of a little buyer's remorse here. Hoping that this is just an opening stance that gets backed down a bit, but we'll see how it goes.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Pot is legal in some form in 29 states that covers about 60% of the population. So society has determined that it is safe. Let's legalize it and move on.

I agree, but I propose doing that the right way. SCOTUS revisits and adopts Justice O'Connor's dissent in Gonzalez v. Raich on the issue of federal authority over pot.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh look, another conservative who pretends the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist when it doesn't work for him.

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, it has everything to do with:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The supreme court expanded that power to extend to all commerce and some activities that never involve commerce but may have some minute effect on it.

The Commerce Clause deals with interstate commerce, which does not apply to states that have legalized marijuana, so yes, it is very much a Tenth Amendment issue. Furthermore, conservatives have generally never been big fans of using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to expand federal power, but here you guys are justifying that practice when it comes to an action you disagree with.

Feel free to show where I justified anything, I'm simply rubbing it in, telling regressive to enjoy the fruits of their movements labor. The interstate commerce clause was destroyed the day the supreme court upheld fines for a farmer that grew wheat for his own use at FDRs insistence. In fact one of the last cases I strongly disagreed with Scalia on was when he voted to uphold a commerce clause case against two women that grew marijuana on their property for their own use.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Fed law trumps state law. I do think sessions is biased cause he is about lazy as fuck when it comes to his job. THIS is what is important?
Fed gov shouldnt have a say in pot anyways. You know, the Constitution and all. Pretty sure the COTUS trumps fed law

The supreme court trumps the Constitution, ask any regressive.


.

Tell us about you regressives.

We liberals believe that the Constitution trumps Federal law- and that the Supreme Court enforces the Constitution.

Why do you believe that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution?

Poor naive thing, it's the supreme court that gave the feds the power, in violation of the commerce clause, at FDRs insistence. You might want to do a bit of reading on the history of the commerce clause.


.

Poor little contard- still believing that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Feel free where I justified anything, I'm simply rubbing it in telling regressive to enjoy the fruits of their movements labor. The interstate commerce clause was destroyed the day the supreme court upheld fines for a farmer that grew wheat for his own use at FDRs insistence. In fact one of the last cases I strongly disagreed with Scalia on was when he voted to uphold a commerce clause case against two women that grew marijuana on their property for their own use.

See above. Gonzalez v. Raich. Way ahead of you.

 

[Syriusly]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

Even though the states violating federal law need to have their dicks slapped by the DOJ, Sessions shouldn't be wasting his time on this shit. He really needs to be working on locking up the previous administration for their crimes instead.

What makes you think it would be a waste of time, the could confiscate billions in illegal profits and assets from these State run drug cartels.


.

Perhaps that's the motivation behind Session's new war on pot: The government always wants a cut of the action. I'm not defending it or complaining about it because either way, I don't smoke the stuff.

Hey, if they don't want to pay the band, don't go to the dance. The feds can go after the grow operations, stores and State officials that conspire to violate federal law and launder illegal proceeds. Plus they can go after the cash all of them made. I hope Sessions does just that. Let regressives get a full measure of what a post constitutional US feels like.


.

Of course you do.

You contards are always in favor of Big Brother telling Americans what we can or cannot do.

 

[Syriusly]

How about if we just disregard all federal laws?

How about you go first and let us know how that works out?

 

[Syriusly]

Are you libtards okay with states ignoring Federal immigration law?

Hmmmm I don't know any libtards.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course you do.

You contards are always in favor of Big Brother telling Americans what we can or cannot do.

If we go with my proposal to amend the constitution to prevent such abuses of the commerce clause, thereby giving states authority over pot, are you going to call me a coward?

 

[bendog]

Oh look, another conservative who pretends the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist when it doesn't work for him.

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, it has everything to do with:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The supreme court expanded that power to extend to all commerce and some activities that never involve commerce but may have some minute effect on it.

The Commerce Clause deals with interstate commerce, which does not apply to states that have legalized marijuana, so yes, it is very much a Tenth Amendment issue. Furthermore, conservatives have generally never been big fans of using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to expand federal power, but here you guys are justifying that practice when it comes to an action you disagree with.

It's an interesting issue to me, largely because imo interesting issues arise when state laws treat human activities differently. For example, once Free states made it explicitly clear that they would not enforce the Dred Scott decision, federalism broke down.

Of course people smoking weed or marrying people of their own sex are probably not on the level of the civil war.

 

[OKTexas]

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, it has everything to do with:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The supreme court expanded that power to extend to all commerce and some activities that never involve commerce but may have some minute effect on it.

I thought you were a "conservative" type guy. That's a grossly overboard interpretation of the Commerce Clause that has rendered the 10th Amendment meaningless. EVER FUCKING THING ON EARTH is considered commerce to hack statist authoritarian ass wipes.

THIS is why we need a Constitutional Convention. We need to clarify the Commerce Clause to prevent SCOTUS commie abuse.

I propose this Randy Barnett's "Federalism Amendment":

Section 1: Secession. Any State or Indian tribe may, by an act of its legislature, secede from the United States.

Section 2: Nature of the Union. From the perspective of the United States, the States are sovereign and are the parties to the Constitution, which is a compact among the States.

Section 3: Nullification.

(a) When a national majority the States of the United States declares a decision by any federal court to be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, the said decision shall thereby be negated and precedent restored. The States shall convey their declarations to the U.S. Solicitor General, who in turn will notify the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to take appropriate measures consistent with this Section.

(b) Any federal treaty, executive agreement, statute, regulation, administrative ruling, executive order, or the like may be nullified by a national majority of the States, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 3(a).

(c) Any person holding an office of the United States government may be removed from office by a national majority of the States, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 3(a).

Section 4: Interstate Highway Funds. The United States is prohibited from placing any conditions on any grants of interstate highway funds not directly and reasonably related to the purpose of establishing interstate transportation.

Section 5: Free Market. An internal free market, being necessary to the prosperity of a national economy, the interstate commerce clause set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 shall henceforth be construed, with respect to commerce among the states, to give Congress only the power to prohibit State restrictions on interstate trade; and in no event shall this power or any other power in the Constitution be construed to give the Congress plenary legislative or police power. This Section is subject to the limits set forth in Section 1.

Section 6: Income Tax. The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby immediately repealed, and any person convicted of the crime of federal tax evasion, whether currently in prison or not, whether currently living or not, whether also convicted of other crimes or not, is hereby pardoned.

Section 7: Election of Senators. The 17th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby immediately repealed.

Section 8: State Pardon Power. The governor of each State shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons to any individual convicted of any crime by any federal court who (a) is currently imprisoned within the territory of said State; (b) is a current or previous resident of said State; or (c) committed the acts serving as the basis for said conviction while present in said State.

Section 9: Federal Judiciary. The judicial power of the United States includes the power to nullify (a) any federal law or policy (1) that is not expressly authorized by this Constitution, or (2) that prohibits or unreasonably regulates of a rightful exercise of liberty; and (b) any state law expressly prohibited by a provision of this Constitution or by a constitutional federal statute; but does not include the general power to nullify or review other state laws. This Section is subject to the limits set forth in Section 1.

Section 10: Posse Comitatus. No member of the United States' armed forces or any other armed federal official, employee or agent may be present or bear arms in the territory of a State without the express written permission of the governor of said State. No federal military installation may be placed in the territory of a State without the express written permission of the governor of said State.

Section 11: Original Understanding. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.

If you bothered to read my comments in the three threads on this topic, I've been saying the same thing about the commerce clause. Regressives pushed for it, now they're crying. I enjoy regressive tears, especially when they bring the pain on themselves.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course you do.

You contards are always in favor of Big Brother telling Americans what we can or cannot do.

If we go with my proposal to amend the constitution to prevent such abuses of the commerce clause, thereby giving states authority over pot, are you going to call me a coward?

LOL oh I would support such an amendment- but if you managed to get it passed, I would call you a miracle worker.

 

[OKTexas]

Pot is legal in some form in 29 states that covers about 60% of the population. So society has determined that it is safe. Let's legalize it and move on.

Why not just scale back the feds power to what the Constitution says? Oh right, you're for an all powerful fed, except when it comes to pot. LMAO


.

 

[The Derp]

Why not just scale back the feds power to what the Constitution says? Oh right, you're for an all powerful fed, except when it comes to pot. LMAO.

You're confused. I support reclassifying the drug. That's what I mean by legalization.

 

[OKTexas]

Fed law trumps state law. I do think sessions is biased cause he is about lazy as fuck when it comes to his job. THIS is what is important?
Fed gov shouldnt have a say in pot anyways. You know, the Constitution and all. Pretty sure the COTUS trumps fed law

The supreme court trumps the Constitution, ask any regressive.


.

Tell us about you regressives.

We liberals believe that the Constitution trumps Federal law- and that the Supreme Court enforces the Constitution.

Why do you believe that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution?

Poor naive thing, it's the supreme court that gave the feds the power, in violation of the commerce clause, at FDRs insistence. You might want to do a bit of reading on the history of the commerce clause.


.

Poor little contard- still believing that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution.

Read and learn child.

The Most Important Supreme Court Case You Never Heard Of


.

 

[OKTexas]

Why not just scale back the feds power to what the Constitution says? Oh right, you're for an all powerful fed, except when it comes to pot. LMAO.

You're confused. I support reclassifying the drug. That's what I mean by legalization.

OK so you don't support the Constitution, good to know.


.