Sessions is at it again!!

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
LOL

the supremacy clause and the controlled substances act are conspiracy theories and i am lying about them.

good luck with that one, inveterate liar.

you have less than zero credibility, and you have only yourself to blame.
Your conspiracy is that the controlled substance act is permanently etched in the Constitution, a "law" made pursuant to it, or a treaty.
The reality is that its none of these but simply a federal regulation. Subject to deregulation at any time.
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
Your conspiracy is that the controlled substance act is permanently etched in the Constitution, a "law" made pursuant to it, or a treaty.
The reality is that its none of these but simply a federal regulation. Subject to deregulation at any time.
Not permanently, but currently, and for the foreseeable future.

Fact: Federal drug laws are valid under the constitution until changed.

Fact: Federal drug laws have only gotten stricter over time. Pick a modern time period. Any time period.

It's true that any rights created by law can be destroyed by law. Remember that. It applies to everything.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Not permanently, but currently, and for the foreseeable future.

Fact: Federal drug laws are valid under the constitution until changed.

Fact: Federal drug laws have only gotten stricter over time. Pick a modern time period. Any time period.

It's true that any rights created by law can be destroyed by law. Remember that. It applies to everything.
The truth is the Constitution protects your right to contract and you are allowed to contract your rights away as it were. Anything like that is "constitutionally valid" as you state, so yeah I agree with you.

You have a right to travel for example, well settled that right. Then somewhere along the line you go and agree to a contract that forces you to pay for the "privilege" of "driving".

This federal regulation is no different. You have a right to grow a plant. Somewhere along the line you agreed to waive it.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Your conspiracy is that the controlled substance act is permanently etched in the Constitution, a "law" made pursuant to it, or a treaty.
The reality is that its none of these but simply a federal regulation. Subject to deregulation at any time.
my theory, which is not a conspiracy, but rather a fact, is that the CSA is federal law, and reigns supreme over state laws.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
on the federal level, we have the controlled substances act. that reigns supreme over any state law decriminalizing or even legalizing cannabis.
Again, no it doesn't.

The only time that reigns is in the domain of interstate commerce.

So long as California doesn't import seeds, fertilizer, soil, or anything else in order to grow their marijuana in state and allow it to be used medicinally by way of prescription from a doctor, there is nothing on earth the Federal Government can do about it.

Being on the schedule doesn't mean the government controls a state's right of self governance with regard to any drug. It means the government controls it nation wide from state to state. There's a big difference between the two.

Another example is guns. New York and New Jersey have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. (Not that it matters as everybody just drives to Virginia where there are virtually no laws at all and buys them by the truck load.)

A state has exclusive right to regulate guns within it's borders and there is nothing on earth the Federal Government can do about it. That's why the government has never been able to pass universal background checks for guns. That infringes on the states rights of regulating their own militia, which in the eyes of the Constitution is illegal.

Now, if New York were to get up one morning and collectively say, "That's it. We no longer need a militia, so we are disbanding it in its entirety and banning guns permanently" then guess what?

There would be nothing on earth the Federal Government could do about it.
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
Again, no it doesn't.

The only time that reigns is in the domain of interstate commerce.

So long as California doesn't import seeds, fertilizer, soil, or anything else in order to grow their marijuana in state and allow it to be used medicinally by way of prescription from a doctor, there is nothing on earth the Federal Government can do about it.

Being on the schedule doesn't mean the government controls a state's right of self governance with regard to any drug. It means the government controls it nation wide from state to state. There's a big difference between the two.

Another example is guns. New York and New Jersey have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. (Not that it matters as everybody just drives to Virginia where there are virtually no laws at all and buys them by the truck load.)

A state has exclusive right to regulate guns within it's borders and there is nothing on earth the Federal Government can do about it. That's why the government has never been able to pass universal background checks for guns. That infringes on the states rights of regulating their own militia, which in the eyes of the Constitution is illegal.

Now, if New York were to get up one morning and collectively say, "That's it. We no longer need a militia, so we are disbanding it in its entirety and banning guns permanently" then guess what?

There would be nothing on earth the Federal Government could do about it.
Not even remotely true. The supreme court has held on numerous cases that the federal government has the right to impose regulations on states. Look at civil rights. Several states have clauses in their constitutions that violate the CRA. Guess what? They still have to comply with it.

Employers, even small mom and pop's, have to comply with federal law even where it differs from state law. Manufacturers have to comply with clean air and water acts. And even gun owners have to comply with federal firearm laws.

Case after case has found that federal law trumps state law. There are exceptions, but they are corner cases and don't apply to the controlled substances act or FDA regulations.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Not even remotely true. The supreme court has held on numerous cases that the federal government has the right to impose regulations on states. Look at civil rights.
Again, the reason the Federal Government can do that is because of the U.S. Constitution. That is the ONLY reason they can act.

The Federal Government can't make a state pass a seat belt law, or any law for that matter. All the Federal Government can do is regulate interstate commerce and enforce the U.S. Constitution. So if your state makes a law for instance that says a black person can't enter a court house through the front door, then guess what? That violates the 14th amendment and as such the Federal Government can make you trash that law.

I can't believe you people don't understand this. Federal law ONLY trumps State law if the state law violates the constitution. That is it.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Again, the reason the Federal Government can do that is because of the U.S. Constitution. That is the ONLY reason they can act.

The Federal Government can't make a state pass a seat belt law, or any law for that matter. All the Federal Government can do is regulate interstate commerce and enforce the U.S. Constitution. So if your state makes a law for instance that says a black person can't enter a court house through the front door, then guess what? That violates the 14th amendment and as such the Federal Government can make you trash that law.

I can't believe you people don't understand this. Federal law ONLY trumps State law if the state law violates the constitution. That is it.
But they did make each state pass a seat-belt law.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
By TocoMac post is this true, if so how did the seat-belt laws get passed, was it a state effort or enforced by the feds?
Feds told any state that did not comply that they were getting no highway funds. Probably. That is the way it usually goes. The states can make a choice - and they do. Same thing with 0.08%.

Same way American poor have a choice of healthcare under the ACHA - go homeless or be uninsured. Their choice.
 

Bear420

Well-Known Member
Feds told any state that did not comply that they were getting no highway funds. Probably. That is the way it usually goes. The states can make a choice - and they do.
Wow, Well I guess that shoots that out the window.
Thanks for that. I have to wonder if everything people post is the word, lol I should know better.
Thanks again
 

Magic Mike

Well-Known Member
It's already been established that fed law trumps state law in medical marijuana cases. 2005 Angel Raich sued Ashcroft and DEA and lost the case meaning Fed > State marijuana laws.

Angel Raich was a medical marijuana patient who was raided and her husband was an attorney (if I remember right).

I learned that at Oaksterdam back in 09 there was a segment about it.

But the point is, it's already been established and already been through the supreme court .
 

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
You can all move to Canada, it'll be legal here within a couple of years.

#WelcomeToCanada

View attachment 3906970
Did you hear about Trudeau and Ivanka's 'romancing'? I'm all for it -- maybe he can put a few bugs in her ear and be of some assistance. If a trusting bond is formed, who knows; maybe he can help her work through her childhood sexual abuse/trust issues and serve as a sort of liaison/'Drumpf whisperer'.....

IMG_2313.JPG

IMG_2314.JPG
 
Top