Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[joecct]

Because it's a jurisdictional issue. The federal government has control over all interstate commerce, and federal laws trumps state laws.

I will write my Congressman to ask Congress to pass the Defense of Marijuana Act (DOMA). DOMA will prohibit federal interference in the transportation of legal items theough states where it may be illegal.

I'm probably more anti drug than most of you, but cripes Feds, if 2 states legalize it, leave the friggin truck alone!

[LynahFan]

I will write my Congressman to ask Congress to pass the Defense of Marijuana Act (DOMA). DOMA will prohibit federal interference in the transportation of legal items theough states where it may be illegal.

I'm probably more anti drug than most of you, but cripes Feds, if 2 states legalize it, leave the friggin truck alone!

Not much of a strict constitutionalist, are you?

[joecct]

Not much of a strict constitutionalist, are you?

Yes, I am. But we're legislating / regulating every possible outcome. What happened to screwing up on your own?

I want safe roads and bridges, good schools, and a reasonable expectation of safety. If I call 911, I expect a prompt response. I expect that the solutions to most issues are local in nature.

The Feds should worry about national issues, not what is taught in kindergarten.

If it harm none, do it.
Protect the weak from the strong.

[LynahFan]

The Feds should worry about national issues, not what is taught in kindergarten.

Ouch! I am going to sue you for the topic whiplash I just encountered. I thought we were discussing the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce - silly me, should have known we were discussing educational standards all along....

[joecct]

Ouch! I am going to sue you for the topic whiplash I just encountered. I thought we were discussing the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce - silly me, should have known we were discussing educational standards all along....

ok. Let me simplify. The Fed does too much (because we permitted them/it seemed like a good idea at the time).

[Kepler]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Protect the weak from the strong.

I'm being serious here: I can't understand how if you understand and live by that phrase you can back the Republican party that has been active in the US for the last 30 years. From my perspective, since about 1978 that party has been a boot stamping on a human face. They are nothing but a club wielded by the strong against anything that gets in their way, most often, the weak. They make a charnal house and called it "freedom."

[burd]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I'm being serious here: I can't understand how if you understand and live by that phrase you can back the Republican party that has been active in the US for the last 30 years. From my perspective, since about 1978 that party has been a boot stamping on a human face. They are nothing but a club wielded by the strong against anything that gets in their way, most often, the weak. They make a charnal house and called it "freedom."

Agree. Those who say "protect the weak from the strong" and turn around and insist that the SCOTUS give legislatures time to come around to concepts as gender choice and equality are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. These same people usually use "strict construction" as nothing but cover from which they can emerge from time to time to advocate their own form of judicial legislation.

[unofan]

Serious. See followups.

Even if pot is decriminalized in X and Z, it's still illegal federally and still illegal in Y. So yes.

When states decriminalize pot, a federal agent could still arrest everyone involved in the trade in that state. They just don't have the resources or the inclination to do so. And they can't force state cops to assist them with upholding federal laws.

[Kepler]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Even if pot is decriminalized in X and Z, it's still illegal federally and still illegal in Y. So yes.

When states decriminalize pot, a federal agent could still arrest everyone involved in the trade in that state.

For interstate trade; but if somebody is growing his own in Oregon the feds can't arrest him. Correct?

[St. Clown]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For interstate trade; but if somebody is growing his own in Oregon the feds can't arrest him. Correct?

Why not? (I'm forgetting the case name and a few of the details now, but here goes...) The feds were able to come down on a farmer who was growing legal crops for his own family's consumption, not taking them to market, and yet they were still able to get him on some violations because they said that his family not participating in the crop markets had an impact on interstate commerce.

[Kepler]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Why not? (I'm forgetting the case name and a few of the details now, but here goes...) The feds were able to come down on a farmer who was growing legal crops for his own family's consumption, not taking them to market, and yet they were still able to get him on some violations because they said that his family not participating in the crop markets had an impact on interstate commerce.

That sounds like one of the ADM laws that agri-biz lobbies through Congress to force small holders to sell to them.

Even center-left jurists have said the elasticity of the Commerce Clause was abused in the 60s and 70s. Maybe this is an example of that? uno?

[unofan]

For interstate trade; but if somebody is growing his own in Oregon the feds can't arrest him. Correct?

Nope, because it's still a federal crime, and there are lots of case law behind federal criminal statutes being constitutional even where applied to something not in interstate commerce so long as it could effect interstate commerce.

[unofan]

That sounds like one of the ADM laws that agri-biz lobbies through Congress to force small holders to sell to them.

Even center-left jurists have said the elasticity of the Commerce Clause was abused in the 60s and 70s. Maybe this is an example of that? uno?

That case was from the Depression, so it predates ADM by a lot. I can't remember it's name at the moment either.

[joecct]

I'm being serious here: I can't understand how if you understand and live by that phrase you can back the Republican party that has been active in the US for the last 30 years. From my perspective, since about 1978 that party has been a boot stamping on a human face. They are nothing but a club wielded by the strong against anything that gets in their way, most often, the weak. They make a charnal house and called it "freedom."

I can try to live my life under those two principles. Hopefully if more people did, then weight of numbers would prevail.

It's not going to happen overnight - not even via judicial decree. But we (I) have to start somewhere.

Both parties crush the weak in favor of the strong. Creating dependencies is bad. Crushing confidence is horrible. But (guess where I'm going), I cannot and will not ever condone the weakest among us (guess who) being annihilated for convenience sake. One party makes it part of their core beliefs. Never can or will I support them as long as they support it.

[unofan]

I can try to live my life under those two principles. Hopefully if more people did, then weight of numbers would prevail.

It's not going to happen overnight - not even via judicial decree. But we (I) have to start somewhere.

Both parties crush the weak in favor of the strong. Creating dependencies is bad. Crushing confidence is horrible. But (guess where I'm going), I cannot and will not ever condone the weakest among us (guess who) being annihilated for convenience sake. One party makes it part of their core beliefs. Never can or will I support them as long as they support it.

But I was told in the other thread that no one votes for conservatives because of abortion.