Medical Marihuana & CPL?

[stainless1911]

I dont see it as a constitutional issue, perhaps a legal one, but I want some cites before I will myself agree that one shouldn't need a license.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

http://www.northjersey.com/news/62021667.html?page=all

Unless we carry a bomb or a deadly disease or we somehow run afoul of the Patriot Act, most Americans assume we have the Constitutional right to jump in a train, bus or car and travel all the way to, say, Secaucus.

So, attorney George Cotz was surprised last month when a federal judge directed him to go back to his Mahwah office and find places in the Constitution or in judicial rulings where it says a citizen has a "right to travel."

"It’s a fundamental right," a perplexed Cotz said last week.

Magistrate Madeline Cox Arleo didn’t buy it Aug. 11 when Cotz made a similar kind of everybody-knows-that argument in her Newark courtroom. But in doing research, he became reacquainted with a legal point that’s often overlooked: The Constitution DOES NOT contain a clause specifically granting citizens the right to travel unless they’re congressmen on their way to Washington, D.C.

Curiously, the Articles of Confederation, which governed us prior to the Constitution, does contain such language. Even old King John of England was forced to include the right to travel in the Magna Carta back in 1215.

But framers of the Constitution somehow overlooked this trifle.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

There might be a "right to travel".... but I would love to see some substantiation for a "right to travel by car" because that leaves open a "right to travel by plane"... or a "right to travel by train"... or a "right to travel by fillintheblankwiththelatestconveyanceavailable". Ummmm ... would that mean eventually I would have the right to travel by starship because if the framers had starships they surely would have enshrined the "right to travel by starship" in the Constitution.

Well I sure hope it does! I mean A flippin STARSHIP!!! Hell yes, it better be a right! And don't forget a reasonable fare clause, I mean a current ride to outer space is pretty expensive I hear.

 

[stainless1911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2O7rZTBs7w

 

[NHCGRPR45]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2O7rZTBs7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=95SYdjRVCR0&NR=

yup. flippin starships!

 

[stainless1911]

That weed will do that to ya hahahahaha

 

[NHCGRPR45]

That weed will do that to ya hahahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&

 

[stainless1911]

internal sever error?????

 

[Shadow Bear]

The commerce clause was written into the Constitution (1788) by the founding fathers (glad you think that they are liberals) in Article I, Section 8, clause 3 "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. . ."

SCOTUS throughout the history of the USA has said that the power of Congress to regulate commerce does have limits. To regulate commerce and to be within the commerce clause, the federal law must either regulate the channels of interstate commerce, regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce, or regulate economic activities which (in the aggregate) substantially affects interstate commerce.

Interesting enough in United States v Lopez, SCOTUS held that a federal statute barring possession of a gun in a school zone is invalid.

But, the Federal Government has twisted the commerce clause so egregiously that even knocking off a gas station can be prosecuted by the US Attorneys General in federal court.

 

[Shadow Bear]

What a load of crap. Excuse my French.

I've met people who would literally die if not for the use of marijuana. More than one, in fact. Their use is not by choice, it is by necessity.

Seriously? What disease has marijuana as the cure / antidote? Educate us.

 

[Shadow Bear]

Do you realize that by merely having a driver's license (by the way, driving is a privilege not a right), you give implied consent to tests to determine if you driving impaired. I am talking about the PBT and blood alcohol tests, not the field sobriety tests. If you fail a field sobriety test, you do not have the right to refuse a chemical test to determine your BAC.

Again, the CPL has an implied consent attached to it as well. The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to a CPL.

I suggest that you read Stephen Halbrook's "The Founders' Second Amendment" as it will give you a better understanding of the Second Amendment as written and the historical significance of the Second Amendment.

You forget that the American people throughout history have willing stood by and allowed certain rights to be tailored down or whittle away in an effort to combat some perceived "evil". These rights mean nothing unless good men and women are willing to join together in a concerted unified and organized method to ensure that the rights written down in the Bill of Rights means the same in 200 years as they did 200 years ago. However, a group that resorts to name-calling within itself, demonstrates an attitude that offends rather than educates other, is perceived by those in the elected position to be radicals rather than activists, and has failed to find a leader that withstand being in the limelight's revealing light will not bring about the continuity it seeks but rather will only end up destroying the very right it advocates for.

Yeah, that!

 

[Shadow Bear]

Rights are funny things. No matter what anyone says or does a true right cannot be taken away. Many penalties can be assessed for daring to actually exercise a right... but the right remains.

A general comment:

Perhaps folks have forgotten that many people from the founding of this country to today have endured the ultimate "penalty" for rights by offering their lives in defense of those rights.

And yet many are the words offered here, but no blood, in defense of those liberties.

Some are afraid to even put a few bucks on the line. Just more words. So sad.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

And yet many are the words offered here, but no blood, in defense of those liberties.

Some are afraid to even put a few bucks on the line. Just more words. So sad.

Yes, what he said. But setting yourself up to be a "test case" or something along those lines is no easy thing to do. Yet doing the right thing is hardly ever easy is it?

 

[stainless1911]

Seriously? What disease has marijuana as the cure / antidote? Educate us.

Too many to list. google is your friend. So is weed.

 

[KBCraig]

There might be a "right to travel".... but I would love to see some substantiation for a "right to travel by car" because that leaves open a "right to travel by plane"... or a "right to travel by train"... or a "right to travel by fillintheblankwiththelatestconveyanceavailable". Ummmm ... would that mean eventually I would have the right to travel by starship because if the framers had starships they surely would have enshrined the "right to travel by starship" in the Constitution.

The burden is on you: why is there not a right to travel by car, plane, train, fillintheblankwiththelatestconveyanceavailable, or starships?

If you only include exercise of rights as available to the framers, then you need to log off and smash your computer, and limit your public speech to your unamplified voice from the soapbox, and flyers from your hand-cranked printing press. You should also limit your RKBA to 18th century muskets and flintlock pistols.

 

[Bikenut]

The burden is on you: why is there not a right to travel by car, plane, train, fillintheblankwiththelatestconveyanceavailable, or starships?

If you only include exercise of rights as available to the framers, then you need to log off and smash your computer, and limit your public speech to your unamplified voice from the soapbox, and flyers from your hand-cranked printing press. You should also limit your RKBA to 18th century muskets and flintlock pistols.

Perhaps you should reread the thread.... I didn't say there wasn't the right to travel by car... I asked for proof that there is such a thing.

The burden of proof is always on he who makes the statement, any statement of any kind about any subject, because it is the one making the statement that is asserting it to be fact. So when someone else questions that statement it is up to he who said it was a fact... to prove it's factual. That is nothing more than expecting folks to take responsibility for the things they say.

He who says it is expected... nay, is responsible... to prove it when questioned. Failure to do so negatively impacts the credibility of the one who said it but refuses to prove it.

Oh... and he who tries to put the responsibility of proof onto others suffers a credibility loss right from the get go because it shows a reluctance to accept responsibility for what is said.

No proof = no credibility.

It is that simple.

 

[stainless1911]

Now if we could all just sit down together and smoke a joint, all this bickering would go away. We'd eat some pizza and chocolate, get a perma-smile and the giggles, and then we could get all philosophical and have a fun debate instead. That, my friends, is the truth about weed.

Anybody that takes that kind of happiness away from people deserves to be hated, and most often, they are.

Those who oppose the recreational use of marijuana, a personal choice, have to invariably fall back on the urinalysis. One fact that I savor about that, is those people, the ones who deny medicine from patients and steal away happiness and individual freedom, have to often give those drug tests, which means they get what they deserve. They have to work in human sewage.

America has chosen an alcoholic violent society in stead of a peaceful one through prohibition, and it gets what it deserves with every single fight, domestic violence and drunk driving "accident". (accident in quotation marks), something similar to the "accidental" discharge. -'aint no such thing.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Venator]

There might be a "right to travel".... but I would love to see some substantiation for a "right to travel by car" because that leaves open a "right to travel by plane"... or a "right to travel by train"... or a "right to travel by fillintheblankwiththelatestconveyanceavailable". Ummmm ... would that mean eventually I would have the right to travel by starship because if the framers had starships they surely would have enshrined the "right to travel by starship" in the Constitution.

But those are private means of transport you buy to travel on. If I own a car I should be able to travel without a DL. If I owned a railroad I should be able to travel, same if I owned an airplane.

 

[Bikenut]

I personally believe, my opinion only, there is a right to travel that is just a subset of the right to Liberty. However, I would like to see some kind of substantiation that the right to travel is actually the right to have or use a form of transport while exercising the right to travel (Liberty).

To my mind, a belief or opinion if you will, the right to travel is far different than the right to have or use transport. So I'm very interested in some kind of cites and/or links to a right to have or use transport... of any kind including personally owned transport.. while exercising the right to travel.

Now if there are sources that establish a right to the latest transportation technology in regards to exercising the right to travel (Liberty) ... whether enumerated in the Constitution or specified elsewhere... I'd like to see cites and/or links to such a thing because then I will have learned something new.

And since it isn't me who is stating that the right to travel also includes the methods of transportation used while traveling... it is NOT up to me to do the leg work to prove other people are correct or incorrect. He who makes the statement has the responsibility to prove the statement is factual.

And before anyone uses the idea that if we limit the right to travel to the forms of transport the framers had available at the time the Bill of Rights was written then the 2nd Amendment limits the "right to keep and bear arms" to only the arms available to the framers... please note... the 2nd Amendment contains the specific clarification of the "right to keep and bear arms." And the dictionary defines arms quite nicely as:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

arm[SUP] 2[/SUP] (ärm)n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
-snip-

--Please note the definition of arm includes the word weapon then goes on to give a few examples... but the definition is not limited to just the examples given.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapon

weap·on (w

p

n)n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

--Please note that the definition of an arm is essentially timeless and includes anything and everything that can be used as a weapon... including simple logic.

I still would like to see cites/links that the "right to travel" (Liberty) specifies "by insert your favorite means of transportation here" as well as the 2nd Amendment specifies arms.

 

[Bikenut]

But those are private means of transport you buy to travel on. If I own a car I should be able to travel without a DL. If I owned a railroad I should be able to travel, same if I owned an airplane.

All forms of transport... are owned by someone. Whether you own it or I own it or some big company owns it, or even if "we the people" own it, is immaterial. Why would the mere owning of a form of transport equate to having the right to travel with it?

Is the "right to travel" the same as the "right to travel by transport"?

If it is then it shouldn't be difficult for those who are stating that right exists to provide cites and/or links to prove that statement is factual.