N.Drew,
: That sounds serious
Yeah, it is. Do you get how serious it is, or are you just stupid?
Farkel
The Supreme Law of the Land
by Farkel 65 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
talesin
I had a 'most excellent comment, but hit the wrong key ... drrrr!
FARKEL; you blow me away,,, hope you don't mind if I repeat your words instead of speaking my own,,, but "you said it well" many thanks ...
Folks, I almost feel silly creating this thread, but I think I must do it based upon comments by folks who think the various governments in the USA can make any legally enforceable laws they want.
They cannot!
-
talesin
and again .....
can make any legally enforceable laws they want.
They cannot!
-
talesin
For example::: The War on Drugs is Illegal.. go ahead, ignoramuses, and engage in name-calling behaviour! But you know what? It's all a big lie! The truth about the Truth TM , will set you free !
-
I quit!
An informative thread. Thanks for starting it Farkel
-
Farkel
talesin,
: For example::: The War on Drugs is Illegal.
This is so ironic! I do not do any "illegal" drugs. I tried pot about 5 times in the 1970's and liked it so much that I decided I would never do it again, and I didn't! Nor have I even tried any other "illegal" drug.
Once again, this gets down to the issue of our Liberties. What right does the Government have to create a Nanny State to manage the people who put them in office in the first place? What right does the Government think it has to micro-manage people who make decisions in their lives which only "may" hurt themselves and not hurt others?
Thomas Jefferson talked about "inalienable rights". What does that mean for our illiterate youth who have no education? To them I say, "inalienable" means they cannot be taken away, and Thomas Jefferson said in his declaration of independence they were given to us by GOD. It doesn't get better than that.
Citizens have rights given to them from birth by the Creator. Governments have powers given to them by Citizens who have the rights to do that. And the citizens can take away any or all of those powers, because they were given to the governments by the citizens and they can be taken away from the governments by the citizens, unless the citizens bow down to the governments they first gave the power. Then Liberty is lost. Dilligence is important.
Note that "God" has everything to do with citizens and "God" has no investment in the Governments that God's Children create. Note again where "God" has made His investment and where He hasn't made His investment.
"God" has invested in humans. "God" has NOT invested in governments or religious theocracies and fanciful thinking of idiots in Brooklyn.
How do I know this? The idiots in Brooklyn have ALWAYS been WRONG!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Farkel, Laughs Often CLASS
-
JeffT
Speaking of the war on drugs, its funny that the justice liberals love to hate (Clarence Thomas) wrote a scathing dissent to the opinion overturning California's attempt to legaize homegrown pot. The majority argument claimed that they could overturn because the federal government had primacy over interstate commerce. Thomas pointed out that somebody growing something in their backyard for their own use was not interstate commerce.
Beks, you might want to note that it was the liberals on the supreme court that decided to rewrite the definition of "public use" in the 5th Amendment in Kelo v New Haven. As far as those five justices were concerned if the Pfizer Corp wants to take your property it can get the government to do it for them. Again it was Clarence Thomas that noted that in his dissenting opinion.
-
Justitia Themis
(Clarence Thomas) wrote a scathing dissent to the opinion overturning California's attempt to legaize homegrown pot. The majority argument claimed that they could overturn because the federal government had primacy over interstate commerce. Thomas pointed out that somebody growing something in their backyard for their own use was not interstate commerce.
Not too many attorneys think it was a "scathing dissent," and it simply reiterated his long-time stance that only the actual buying-selling of commodities should qualify as interstate commerce that can be regulated by Congress. Such a view was discarded in Gibbons in the early 1800s. For those who want to perform more research, the case to which JeffT is referring is Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html I'm also including a blurb from my Con Law outline regarding the case.
a. Raich (2005): INTRAstate, non-commercial cultivation/possession of pot (commodity) for personal use. Was legal under CA law. Controlled Substance Act ruled constitutional. Back to aggregation--Wickard.
i. “Economics” = production, distribution, consumption; doesn’t have to be goods that travelled in stream/commerce.
ii. Non-economic activity, that in the aggregate (personal pot usage) substantially affects IC, can be called “economic.” (Even Scalia agrees) “Congress can regulate purely local activities that have a substantial effect on IC.” Broadened Lopez’ definition of economic.
iii. Even if say non-economic, is part of a broader regulatory scheme that regulates clearly economic drug activity. If exempted personal pot use, the whole regulatory CSA scheme would be undermined.
1. O’Connor’s Dissent: This creates a perverse incentive for Congress to legislate broadly.
iv. Since “economic” Court need only find rational basis substantially affects IC.
v. If exempted personal pot use, the whole regulatory CSA scheme would be undermined.
vi. Open question re: Raich:
1. Will Raich methodology be limited to situations where Congress has enacted a comprehensive scheme of federal control or will it be applied in all CC cases? Needed an effective, national scheme, but no such response needed in Lopez/Morrison.
2. Where is the law now?
a. All Justices agree that Congress can regulate intrastate economic activities if those activities, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.
b. They disagree over how the Court is to decide what is substantial if the activity is not commercial in nature.
c. Thomas: thinks buying, selling, shipping.
-
AGuest
I hear you, dear Daddy-O (the greatest of love and peace to you!). I just commented based on what my friend brought to my attention, which shed a bit more "light" on things for ME. I realize there are caveats; I just wanted you share with you that there are caveats to what you posted, as well, which I know you know - !
Dear, dear Beks... thank you and the greatest of love and peace to you! I realize that dear BOTR (peace to you!) is an attorney, but I live in Cali... which the rest of the country (even NY'rs like dear BOTR) often state is "another country". So, our perspective out here can be a little different, sometimes. But, again, thank you!
Peace, chickens... and carry on!
SA, on her own...
-
botchtowersociety
The IC cancer goes back to Wickard vs Filburn.
If you want to do more research, here is a great book that covers the case, written by a friend of mine (who brought the Heller case ). Highly recommended. He also covers Gonzales vs Raich, and Kelo vs New London.
http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Dozen-Radically-Expanded-Government/dp/1595230505
And Thomas may be the most influential Justice on that court.
I recommend the linked New Yorker article too.