gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
vauge said:I have very mixed feelings about this one.
1. Feds should stay OUT of states business.
2. What good is a state law if Fed's overturn them?
gordontravels said:
Too bad Chief Justice Rhenquist hasn't been able to take advantage of the medical properties of Marijuana with his throat cancer because it would surely have had not only a medical benefit for him but also a positive influence on his vote when he considered his fellow Americans that suffer from diseases that either rob them of their well being and appetite
[QUOTE=gordontravels
Danielle.
Shut down the thread. Leave only his post. Debate over.
Pacridge said:Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas all dissented so I doubt his using would have changed his vote.
When you had to "procure" some marijuana for your sick relative, did you have any trouble finding it?
...Why? said:The biggest problem with the Feds arresting people even though they are protected under stated law is that it is aginst the constitution. There is nothing about marijuana possesion in the US Constitution so it should be up to the states. The states have voted and the government didn't like it.
...Why? said:The biggest problem with the Feds arresting people even though they are protected under stated law is that it is aginst the constitution. There is nothing about marijuana possesion in the US Constitution so it should be up to the states. The states have voted and the government didn't like it.
danarhea said:This is yet another reason why the Republican Party has no business calling themselves Conservatives. What they are doing, along with the Democrats, is trashing the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states and to the people. In doing so, they have twisted the Commerce Clause into a knot.
The way I see it, if someone wants to smoke weed, seek out a prostitute, or even paint himself purple and flap his arms like a chicken, he should have every right to do so, as long as in doing so, he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
danarhea said:This is yet another reason why the Republican Party has no business calling themselves Conservatives. What they are doing, along with the Democrats, is trashing the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states and to the people. In doing so, they have twisted the Commerce Clause into a knot.
The way I see it, if someone wants to smoke weed, seek out a prostitute, or even paint himself purple and flap his arms like a chicken, he should have every right to do so, as long as in doing so, he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Pacridge said:Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacridge
Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.
Sounds so nice, he had to say it twice...
SKILMATIC said:I just hope no one takes the 10th ammendment as insanely vague as that individual does.
So if I decided to murder someone becasue I wanted to its ok under the 10th ammendment? Hey I am not infringing on his rights casue he will have all the rights in the world casue hes dead. :lol:
Sounds pretty funny to me.
Well...gordontravels said:One arguement is that there is only limited research. :duel
Pacridge said:Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?