California Ballot Propositions

[DanG 1]

Quote

Here's a thought.

After you know something is illegal, and you have been caught doing that illegal thing twice and warned that you would go to JAIL FOR A LONG TIME, how about you don't do that thing anymore.

Seems pretty simple.

That's not how three strikes laws work. The three strike don't have to be for the same crime.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

Depends on the state.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Nightingale 0]

The federal government is (or is SUPPOSED to be) a government of limited jurisdiction, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Certain rights are protected specifically in the Constitution, to prevent federal, state, or local governments from stepping on those rights (speech, religion, etc...), but things that aren't specifically constitutionally protected or specifically designated as a federal power can be regulated by the states.

Since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to ban drug use, they shouldn't be able to ban it. I think the recent rulings giving them that power under the commerce clause were a stretch, and completely beyond the intention of the commerce clause. This is evidenced by looking at the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol. In 1919, the government was aware that without an amendment, they lacked the authority to ban a substance, and went through the proper amendment process to do so. It is logical to conclude that the current drug laws would also be unconstitutional without an amendment giving the federal government the power to act in this manner.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

It's pretty hot when you get all legal like that!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The federal government is (or is SUPPOSED to be) a government of limited jurisdiction, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Certain rights are protected specifically in the Constitution, to prevent federal, state, or local governments from stepping on those rights (speech, religion, etc...), but things that aren't specifically constitutionally protected or specifically designated as a federal power can be regulated by the states.

Since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to ban drug use, they shouldn't be able to ban it. I think the recent rulings giving them that power under the commerce clause were a stretch, and completely beyond the intention of the commerce clause. This is evidenced by looking at the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol. In 1919, the government was aware that without an amendment, they lacked the authority to ban a substance, and went through the proper amendment process to do so. It is logical to conclude that the current drug laws would also be unconstitutional without an amendment giving the federal government the power to act in this manner.

This and many other laws

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Yup, that twisted, power hungry, misinterpretation of the commerce clause has really screwed things up in terms of individual liberties and state's rights

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Ooooh! I started a thread that got that flame icon. Cool! Don't think that's happened before. Uhoh. is that beer?

[happythoughts 0]

Years ago, people realized that it takes a lot of time and
money to get laws passed in every state.

So, they get the SC to make a ruling and all the other
courts have to deal with it.

Also, if the state doesn't enforce the law in the manner
which is expected by the Fed, then the state will not get
any funding for schools, roads, and anything other topic.

It's the Golden Rule. Whoever has the gold, rules.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Ooooh! I started a thread that got that flame icon. Cool! Don't think that's happened before. Uhoh. is that beer?

I'm partial to Sam Adams. Just sayin...

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Ooooh! I started a thread that got that flame icon. Cool! Don't think that's happened before. Uhoh. is that beer?

I'm partial to Sam Adams. Just sayin...

If you make it out to Perris, perhaps that can be arranged. While I can't jump very often, I do try to get some tunnel time in now and again.