Feds to close California Pot dispensaries

[Binky]

keep being anti-american brah

lol

[Taylor]

They have no rights to enforce federal drug laws?

Im all for it. Medicinal marijuana is some bullshit science anyways. Much like global warming.

[Forever_frost]

So, how is my understanding of history and our founding documents, the words of the founders themselves and the very words of the Constitution make me a crackpot?

[talisman]

It isn't your understanding that makes you a crackpot, it's your misunderstanding.

[Forever_frost]

Then enlighten me. Tell me how the enumerated powers, the 10th amendment and the 2nd amendment do not place limits on what the federal government can do. Especially when the 10th says that anything not expressly given to the federal government belongs to the states.

[talisman]

It's already been explained, I'm not going to sit here an regurgitate it. You're attempting to limit legislation by things that doesn't limit it. It's as simple as that.

[Forever_frost]

No, legislation IS limited by the Constitution. You're right, I've told you repeatedly what the constitution says, in the Constitution's own words and somehow, that makes ME a crackpot.

So what you're saying is since there are no limits on what Congress can pass and the President can sign, then congress can decide to confiscate all 401k's and private property and if the president signs off on it, it MUST be constitutional as it has his signature on it. Correct?

[46Tbird]

Jesus dude, take your Constitutional argument up with your congressman. You're wasting everyone's bandwidth with this stupid shit.

[Forever_frost]

Yes because debating the constitution on the politics section is wasting bandwidth. You DON'T have to read this or any post by me.

[racrguy]

Yes because debating the constitution on the politics section is wasting bandwidth. You DON'T have to read this or any post by me.

At least when you post you should try to be right. You have a habit of being wrong about a lot of things and when people correct you you try to brow beat like no one understands what you're trying to say. The problem is that YOU don't understand the topic. You take the first bit of information you come across as fully researched and well thought out, you should fact check your sources and do more research before posting. It's sad that someone supposedly with a college degree has to have this explained to them. The years you claim to have spent in academia have not served you well.

[Binky]

So what you're saying is since there are no limits on what Congress can pass and the President can sign, then congress can decide to confiscate all 401k's and private property and if the president signs off on it, it MUST be constitutional as it has his signature on it. Correct?

Yes, they could theoretically pass such a law and the president could sign it. It'd be political suicide, but we'll go with it for now.

The lawsuits that would erupt would put it before the supreme court (judicial branch) and it would be declared unconstitutional and nullified.

End of story, thats how the system works. Checks and balances.

Now shut the fuck up.

[Cooter]

Yes, they could theoretically pass such a law and the president could sign it. It'd be political suicide, but we'll go with it for now.

The lawsuits that would erupt would put it before the supreme court (judicial branch) and it would be declared unconstitutional and nullified.

End of story, thats how the system works. Checks and balances.

Now shut the fuck up.

yeah, that's how it works... there aren't any un-constitutional laws that have been on the books for decades or anything.

[racrguy]

yeah, that's how it works... there aren't any un-constitutional laws that have been on the books for decades or anything.

They have to be contested. As far as I know the supreme court doesn't (or can't, maybe?) overturn any laws unless there is a hearing over them.

[Forever_frost]

They have to be contested. As far as I know the supreme court doesn't (or can't, maybe?) overturn any laws unless there is a hearing over them.

And the Supreme court has to decide to hear it. They can simply refuse to hear it for giggles. We have MANY unconstitutional laws on the books usually because it's so expensive and intensive to get to the Supreme Court.

[Forever_frost]

At least when you post you should try to be right. You have a habit of being wrong about a lot of things and when people correct you you try to brow beat like no one understands what you're trying to say. The problem is that YOU don't understand the topic. You take the first bit of information you come across as fully researched and well thought out, you should fact check your sources and do more research before posting. It's sad that someone supposedly with a college degree has to have this explained to them. The years you claim to have spent in academia have not served you well.

I'd be more than happy to compare not only educational backgrounds but also life experience anytime you feel like it Skippy. I fully understand the topic and am correct on this and most topics I post on as I do actually research the topics I post on. You only feel like I brow beat you because of the amount of information I bring to the table.

Care to disprove anything I've posted, such as the powers of the federal government, the reason for the 2nd amendment and the existence of unconstitutional laws?