Originally Posted by orangello
The feds never had any constitutional authority to regulate marijuana either, until we let them outgrow their purpose.
Teasing was a useful tool with the Boston Tea Party. It got the ball rolling on getting rid of a tyranical government that had past its usefulness.
An alternative is a "reboot" for the federal government, something i think has been long overdue since the days of the "New Deal" aka "Intro to American Socialism".
I do agree that the pothead wanting to stay armed would be wise to keep their marijuana use (medical or recreational) unofficial and among friends, which the federal government obviously is not.
It seems like the card-carrying potheads would be better off if they would avoid buying from/through that other federal overreach, the FFL.
Sorry to bring this thread back,I was going to let it die,but I couldn't stop myself from adding that federal law DOES NOT
"trump" state law,thats not the way it works as per the Constitution.
First of all the Supremacy Clause is very clear that federal law must FIRST
abide by the Constitution,WHICH ITSELF IS THE HIGHEST LAW
,before it can even be considered legitimate."This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."-Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution,the "supremacy clause"
The claim that "federal law trumps state law" is also being used to support Obamacare.Of course,Obutthead care supporters think that the commerce clause gives the government the power to order Americans to buy a product.
Absolute nonsense,in fact -COMPLETE AND TOTAL BULL$HIT
I can go further into just what the commerce clause is all about and how bastardized and illegitimate its "modern interpretation" and usage is today,but thats not the point of this discussion.
So where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to tell people what they can and cannot consume on a consensual basis in the privacy of their homes?
Remember the Volstead Act?
The federal government actually had to literally amend the Constitution before it had the power to enforce prohibition.
Where is the amendment for the so-called "war on drugs"?
Further,the states do in fact have the right to assert themselves in a position of "interposition" between the people and the federal government when the federal government is doing things that are not part of their lawful authority.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson BOTH
used this actual practice to achieve full success over the Adams administration and its Alien and Sedition Acts."The powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact(the Constitution of The United States), to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact(the Constitution)."-James Madison "........that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (Each state) has an equal right to judge for itself........"-Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
To see so-called conservatives cheer for the Obama administration when its blatantly corrupt "justice department" under Eric "The Gunwalker Man" Holder illegitimately cracking down on a position that said so called conservatives champion is both very contradictory and telling of the fact that MOST
conservatives,if you call them such,have absolutely no idea as to what the Constitution is all about,nor do they give a damn about the Cause of Liberty,as they would use government to achieve their goals of what their version of a perfect America should be DESPITE
the constitution and DESPITE
the fact that they look JUST
like the liberals they claim to despise who use government to achieve their little idea of "utopia".
Government cannot "take" inalienable,God given rights any more then it can take your soul.
It can choose to abide them or violate them and that is it.
A government that chooses to abide them is the principle object of the Founders Revolution,the Constitution,and the Cause of Liberty.
A government that violates inalienable rights for any reason is nothing less then a tyrannical one."It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."-George Washington"Rights come from GOD not the state. You have rights antecedent to any earthly governments rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws. Rights derived from the great legislator: God." -John Adams“The people... shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or
regulation of law for the purpose.”-Thomas Cooley,Treatise on Constitutional Limitations,1868
And if you want to say that my opinion is a "pipe dream",perhaps you should consider that the reason why we have such tyranny as "gun control" and "obamacare" in the first place,is because the Constitution has become a "pipe dream".
True liberty is when people can live together in peace with one another despite different lifestyles.TYRANNY
is what you get when government is used as a tool to OPPRESS
otherwise peaceable people who you do not like.
Time to wake up.“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”