-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Should we crash the party
- Thread starter Mitchell
- Start date
autosurgeon
Regular Member
People need to be aware that just having the card is not the problem. However if you possess or use MJ you are in violation of federal law. :banghead:
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
state's rights trump federal law... or do they? they're supposed to...
Last edited:
Gort
Regular Member
SUPREMACY CLAUSE
"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
May be State Legal but not Federal.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s105.htm
stainless1911
Banned
So, the constitutional RKBA trumps all other gun control laws?
Gort
Regular Member
I say Yes, but from what i have read the DEA picks its targets based on severalty, or history of past crimes a person has committed. But the State Law of having a marijuana card that puts a person in the safety zone, could be trumped by Federal. as for Gun Control laws, according to the Supremacy Clause,
any conflicting State Law would be given preference to Federal Law.
stainless1911
Banned
One concept that I have always struggled with is this. A LEO takes an oath to uphold the constitution, and the laws of the land. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now if the LEO is asked to enforce a law that runs contrary to the supreme law, ie. pistol free zones, or a charge that would result in the loss of those rights, why then, does the LEO enforce the inferior laws, instead of the superior one, the constitution?
For exsample, If I were a cop, and saw someone carrying in a car without a CPL, I would think, "I swore that I would uphold the law, but also to protect the guys rights, which are from a greater law, so I wont violate his rights by enforcing this unconstitutional law". But they never do that. IMO, that teeters on treason.
For exsample, If I were a cop, and saw someone carrying in a car without a CPL, I would think, "I swore that I would uphold the law, but also to protect the guys rights, which are from a greater law, so I wont violate his rights by enforcing this unconstitutional law". But they never do that. IMO, that teeters on treason.
Gort
Regular Member
Cops are somewhat like the everyday person that is caught up in the quagmire of laws, and who pays the Cop his paycheck and the duty not to commit treason on his or her own family.
Example, car is stopped, person in car has gun and no cpl, you let him go, this person commits a crime and you are now out of work and may also be an accessory to the crime.
I understand your statement, and I am sure that everyone struggles with these bad laws.
TheQ
Regular Member
Where does the US Constitution say the Federal Government may regulate drugs? It doesn't. Therefore, that law was not made in "pursuance" of the US Constitution and ergo is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land (If judges interpreted things right).
You are making a constitutional argument, I am countering it with one of my own -- that's all. The Judges will side with your argument, but that doesn't make it right.
If its OT and it worries you so much then why in the **** are you furthering the thread by posting in it?
stainless1911
Banned
I have always considered his contributions to be valid.
as far as i know the obama administration has said it will not focus on the issue of legalization but it also will not worry about prosecuting medical marijuana users who have the proper requirements and whom are doing it legally within their own state. I personally went to a local medical marijuana conference in my state where they pretty much said they arent worried about federal interference.
The government is not going to waste its time trying to nab someone for a misdemeanor MJ possession charge.... Its not like they have DEA agents just hanging out waiting to jump on anyone they see using drugs. The only time i could see them getting involved is if they have a very strong suspicion that you are selling drugs, making drugs or involving children in your drug activities, and even then it takes them time to set up a case and gather what they need for evidence.
Gort
Regular Member
Not arguing, But respect your opinion, but statement is of fact. found a statement below that may give more detail of the Question, Pursuance thereof to its constitutional powers.
Not saying the statement below is correct, but a continual erosion of The Constitution.
And we know, judges don't always follow Law.
That is a very broad question. Per Article I, section 8, clause 18, Congress may pass any laws necessary and proper to the accomplishment of its powers laid out in clauses 2-17. This elastic clause has permitted Congress to regulate on a wide variety of issues, including gun control, drug regulations, property limitations.
Even fundamental rights, such as free speech, can be limited -- but with restrictions on the part of the Government to show a compelling or important interest, appropriately tailored to avoid conflict with the protected right.
This was just a brief synopsis, but hopefully explains that Congress has great powers to regulate in Pursuance thereof to its constitutional powers -- including those powers also implied and inherent to its enumerated functions.
Derek Brett
The Brett Law Firm, P.A.
Orlando, Florida
TheQ
Regular Member
There are three constitutional justifications that should never hold water with any lover of the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers knew theses sections would be twisted to allow the Federal Government to do anything, they would have never written them.
1. Necessary And Proper Clause
2. General Welfare Clause (Part of the preamble!)
3. Interstate Commerce Clause -- which was written so the States could not interfere with interstate Commerce -- not so that Congress could interfere in everything!
"If I buy my shoes in Tennessee they can regulate my walking in Kentucky."
- Rand Paul on talking about the absurdity of the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Gort
Regular Member
Thanks for the lesson.
Subject of the Constitution, and the history of should be sticked for others to learn, such as Me.
TheQ
Regular Member
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
I can't go, I'm allergic.