State Pot Laws Usurping the Fed Means Abortion Is Next...

[martybegan]

Blah blah blah slippery slope, blah blah blah.

You answered NONE of my points, and you ignore my 2nd amendment references because you can't answer it truthfully.

You cheap, dime store hack.

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't. They're not. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

Something you are unable to do apparently.

Fuh fuh fuh, slippery slope, fuh fuh fuh, I suck supreme court cock when it suits me, fuh fuh fuh"

 

[martybegan]

I am asking you WHY pot smoking isn't a right, and you answer with how it isn't

Try to keep up.

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......your 'points' have zero relevance to likely legal outcomes. As they are all based in YOU being a definitive legal authority. With the courts bound to your personal opinion. You aren't. They're not. You're nobody.

Sorry, Marty. But in a slippery slope argument trying to predict actual legal outcomes.......you citing yourself means jack shit.

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

In a discussion of actual legal outcomes, your personal opinion that the courts 'were wrong' is meaningless babble.

Try again, this time with the actual law.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

I'm citing the actual law. I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Neither of which have a thing to do with your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be.

Your personal opinion predicts no legal outcome. And predicting legal outcomes are the discussion you jumped into the middle of.

 

[Skylar]

Marty....I'm discussing what rights actually ARE. What powers actually ARE. You're babbling about what you think they 'oughta' be. And no one gives a shit what you think 'oughta' be in a discussion predicting actual legal outcomes.

And actual legal outcomes are what we're discussing. Not your typical, droning 'but, but my personal opinion oughta trump the courts and the law' shtick.

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

 

[martybegan]

I am basing it on my opinion as an American Citizen and as a Strict Constructional Federalist,. You run back to "slippery slope" and because because because each time.

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

In a discussion of actual legal outcomes, your personal opinion that the courts 'were wrong' is meaningless babble.

Try again, this time with the actual law.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

I'm citing the actual law. I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Neither of which have a thing to do with your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be.

Your personal opinion predicts no legal outcome. And predicting legal outcomes are the discussion you jumped into the middle of.

No. It isn't about the law as applied, it's about the fact that the Courts DO NOT CREATE LAWS. they interpret, and when they exceed that they ruin our Constitutional system.

There is NO FEDERAL LAW saying abortion is legal, or SSM is forced on all States, only a decision by a bunch of asshole lawyers.

 

[martybegan]

Just admit you are afraid to discuss the points I am bringing up. Stop arguing the how and not the why.

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

 

[Skylar]

And the courts don't cite you. The law doesn't cite you. No one gives a shit that you imagine you're the supreme legal authority. You're still nobody. Your opinion still predicts no legal outcome.

And predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes is what we're discussing. You're doing your typical 'I AM THE LAW' judge dredd schtick where you present your personal opinion as legally binding. And then get increasingly frustrated and confused as no one accepts your imaginary legal authority.

Get used to that feeling.

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

In a discussion of actual legal outcomes, your personal opinion that the courts 'were wrong' is meaningless babble.

Try again, this time with the actual law.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

I'm citing the actual law. I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Neither of which have a thing to do with your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be.

Your personal opinion predicts no legal outcome. And predicting legal outcomes are the discussion you jumped into the middle of.

No. It isn't about the law as applied, it's about the fact that the Courts DO NOT CREATE LAWS. they interpret, and when they exceed that they ruin our Constitutional system.

There is NO FEDERAL LAW saying abortion is legal, or SSM is forced on all States, only a decision by a bunch of asshole lawyers.

Abortion is a legally protected right. That you disagree is irrelevant. As you're nobody.

Again, in predicting actual legal outcomes the law as it is, rights as they are is the only relevant standard. Your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be is meaningless babble. As it predicts nothing.

You're stuck, Marty.

 

[Skylar]

I'm here to discuss the thread. Its about predicting ACTUAL legal outcomes.

Not your delusions that your personal opinions are legally binding.

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

 

[martybegan]

I am not asking the courts for anything. I am not saying I am anybody. I am asking you for your own views on WHY things are the way you want them to be, not HOW.

You are the one running to the courts for validating your own views. Again, I ask you why, and you respond with how.

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

In a discussion of actual legal outcomes, your personal opinion that the courts 'were wrong' is meaningless babble.

Try again, this time with the actual law.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

I'm citing the actual law. I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Neither of which have a thing to do with your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be.

Your personal opinion predicts no legal outcome. And predicting legal outcomes are the discussion you jumped into the middle of.

No. It isn't about the law as applied, it's about the fact that the Courts DO NOT CREATE LAWS. they interpret, and when they exceed that they ruin our Constitutional system.

There is NO FEDERAL LAW saying abortion is legal, or SSM is forced on all States, only a decision by a bunch of asshole lawyers.

Abortion is a legally protected right. That you disagree is irrelevant. As you're nobody.

Again, in predicting actual legal outcomes the law as it is, rights as they are is the only relevant standard. Your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be is meaningless babble. As it predicts nothing.

You're stuck, Marty.

Lol, says the person who's only retort is "its a right because the court says so"

 

[Skylar]

I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Your personal opinions have no relevance to any legal outcome, as you're nobody.

You don't think that the courts should have recognized abortion and marriage as a right? Tough shit. They did. And in a discussion of ACTUAL legal outcomes, the law as it is, the court rulings as they are, rights as they are are relevant.

You citing yourself predicts nothing. And is gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing.

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

In a discussion of actual legal outcomes, your personal opinion that the courts 'were wrong' is meaningless babble.

Try again, this time with the actual law.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

I'm citing the actual law. I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Neither of which have a thing to do with your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be.

Your personal opinion predicts no legal outcome. And predicting legal outcomes are the discussion you jumped into the middle of.

No. It isn't about the law as applied, it's about the fact that the Courts DO NOT CREATE LAWS. they interpret, and when they exceed that they ruin our Constitutional system.

There is NO FEDERAL LAW saying abortion is legal, or SSM is forced on all States, only a decision by a bunch of asshole lawyers.

Abortion is a legally protected right. That you disagree is irrelevant. As you're nobody.

Again, in predicting actual legal outcomes the law as it is, rights as they are is the only relevant standard. Your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be is meaningless babble. As it predicts nothing.

You're stuck, Marty.

Lol, says the person who's only retort is "its a right because the court says so"

The courts are legally authoritative, Marty. We're discussing actual legal outcomes. Their rulings are immediately relevant to their outcomes. They're predictive.

Your personal opinions aren't.

 

[martybegan]

I am asking you about why, yet you still stick with how.

Afraid?

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

By adding certain rights to the document they enumerated them, thus giving them federal protection. Nowhere does the 9th say that rights are automatically given protection just because a Court says so.

 

[martybegan]

They were wrong, just like they were wrong with Plessey. They made up crap as they went along.

In a discussion of actual legal outcomes, your personal opinion that the courts 'were wrong' is meaningless babble.

Try again, this time with the actual law.

I am not citing ANYTHING, I am discussing.

I'm citing the actual law. I'm discussing actual legal outcomes. Neither of which have a thing to do with your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be.

Your personal opinion predicts no legal outcome. And predicting legal outcomes are the discussion you jumped into the middle of.

No. It isn't about the law as applied, it's about the fact that the Courts DO NOT CREATE LAWS. they interpret, and when they exceed that they ruin our Constitutional system.

There is NO FEDERAL LAW saying abortion is legal, or SSM is forced on all States, only a decision by a bunch of asshole lawyers.

Abortion is a legally protected right. That you disagree is irrelevant. As you're nobody.

Again, in predicting actual legal outcomes the law as it is, rights as they are is the only relevant standard. Your personal opinion on what the law 'oughta' be is meaningless babble. As it predicts nothing.

You're stuck, Marty.

Lol, says the person who's only retort is "its a right because the court says so"

The courts are legally authoritative, Marty. We're discussing actual legal outcomes. Their rulings are immediately relevant to their outcomes. They're predictive.

Your personal opinions aren't.

Right back to running behind the Robes of unelected lawyers.

Are your beliefs so fragile that you can't get away from appeals to authority as an answer to my every question?

 

[Skylar]

Why doesn't predict jack shit, Marty. What is does. And abortion and marriage are both rights.

The conflict on pot laws are based in powers. Not rights. Making any slippery slope argument moot as we're talking about two completely different legal bases.

Why are you so terrified to discuss the actual law, actual legal outcomes?

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

 

[martybegan]

They are rights in your opinion, and in the opinion of a bunch of unelected lawyers. Unless a State has added them to their own Constitution as a rights they are only protected so far as opinion doesn't change.

I declare I have a right to throw tarts at a statue, the 9th amendment says so.....

Not terrified at all. You on the other hand run back to your betters and refuse to discuss the why, not the how.

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

The 9th amendment says nothing about how they become rights. It can be interpreted as allowing State Constitutions to enumerate their own rights, not that some court can just whip them out of thin air and force everyone to agree to them.

To be a PROTECTED right, it should be in the Constitution, otherwise we trust them to the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

You may take comfort in that, to me it's a terrible situation.

 

[Skylar]

Right back to running behind the Robes of unelected lawyers.

Are your beliefs so fragile that you can't get away from appeals to authority as an answer to my every question?

Again, we're discussing actual legal outcomes.

The conflict between the States and the Federal Government on pot laws have nothing to do with abortion or same sex marriage as the legal basis for each is vastly different. The former is about powers of respective government. The latter, the rights of individuals. A conflict between state and federal governments regarding their powers creates no slippery slope for rights of individuals. As Rights of Individuals trump both the federal and state government's laws.

Thus, there is no slippery slope.

 

[Skylar]

They are rights according to our law.

You can pretend this isn't the case. But neither your pretending nor your personal opinion predict any legal outcome. And predicting actual legal outcomes are what we are discussing.

Join us. The water's fine.

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

The 9th amendment says nothing about how they become rights. It can be interpreted as allowing State Constitutions to enumerate their own rights, not that some court can just whip them out of thin air and force everyone to agree to them.

To be a PROTECTED right, it should be in the Constitution, otherwise we trust them to the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

You may take comfort in that, to me it's a terrible situation.

What you think 'should be in the constitution' is irrelevant to a discussion of likely legal outcomes. What *is* in the constitution is relevant. The court cases and case law surrounding it are relevant. The law is relevant.

As the constitution, court cases, case law and statutory law are predictive of legal outcomes. And your insistence on what 'should' be isn't.

 

[martybegan]

Right back to running behind the Robes of unelected lawyers.

Are your beliefs so fragile that you can't get away from appeals to authority as an answer to my every question?

Again, we're discussing actual legal outcomes.

The conflict between the States and the Federal Government on pot laws have nothing to do with abortion or same sex marriage as the legal basis for each is vastly different. The former is about powers of respective government. The latter, the rights of individuals. A conflict between state and federal governments regarding their powers creates no slippery slope for rights of individuals. As Rights of Individuals trump both the federal and state government's laws.

Thus, there is no slippery slope.

It all boils down to a disrespect for the Constitution. People who make up rights can just as easily make up reasons to get rid of them.

You don't care because you are ignorant and short sighted.

 

[martybegan]

tell me the federal law, passed by congress that makes Abortion legal, or forces States to recognize SSM.

Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

The 9th amendment says nothing about how they become rights. It can be interpreted as allowing State Constitutions to enumerate their own rights, not that some court can just whip them out of thin air and force everyone to agree to them.

To be a PROTECTED right, it should be in the Constitution, otherwise we trust them to the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

You may take comfort in that, to me it's a terrible situation.

What you think 'should be in the constitution' is irrelevant to a discussion of likely legal outcomes. What *is* in the constitution is relevant. The court cases and case law surrounding it are relevant. The law is relevant.

As the constitution, court cases, case law and statutory law are predictive of legal outcomes. And your insistence on what 'should' be isn't.

Blah blah blah, law, blah blah blah, no read debate on the topic.

 

[EverCurious]

Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

 

[Skylar]

Right back to running behind the Robes of unelected lawyers.

Are your beliefs so fragile that you can't get away from appeals to authority as an answer to my every question?

Again, we're discussing actual legal outcomes.

The conflict between the States and the Federal Government on pot laws have nothing to do with abortion or same sex marriage as the legal basis for each is vastly different. The former is about powers of respective government. The latter, the rights of individuals. A conflict between state and federal governments regarding their powers creates no slippery slope for rights of individuals. As Rights of Individuals trump both the federal and state government's laws.

Thus, there is no slippery slope.

It all boils down to a disrespect for the Constitution. People who make up rights can just as easily make up reasons to get rid of them.

You don't care because you are ignorant and short sighted.

It all boils down to a lack of a slippery slope. As rights and powers are completely different legal bases.

And I don’t care about your personal opinion in a discussion about predicting legal outcomes. As your personal opinion predicts nothing.