Let's try to turn this discussion in a more productive direction than political potshotting. How do you think the contradictory federal and state laws ought to interact in this case? Do the states have the power to legalize something that is federally illegal? Does the federal government have the power to declare a drug illegal? Given that the federal government has declared the drug illegal, does the executive branch have the authority to choose not to enforce that law? And are the answers to these questions specific to marijuana/other drugs, or do they have broader implications?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This law will not hold up to judicial review. It is absurdly unconstitutional and why the hell would Obama sign it anyway? Can't imagine it will have the votes to be overturned.
The way marijuana was made illegal was through the Commerce Clause with some very convoluted justification. I don't think the criminalization of marijuana was on sound legal grounds because of the perversion of the Commerce Clause.
And before anyone wants to whine about "racist" justifications of marijuana legalization, save it for Florida Stand Your Ground laws, I don't want to hear about your convenient allyship.
I thought the whole point of having State Law was so that states could make laws that are contradictory to Federal Law.
I'm not American, so I've probably missed something.
No, there is a clause in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law has the final say when states make laws contradictory to federal statutes, the Constitution, and case law. The federal government has declared marijuana a Schedule I substance, meaning it has no legitimate use, medical or otherwise, and is highly addictive. They have the final say on marijuana, and it will take a literal act of Congress or a Supreme Court case to reverse this. Not sure if the SCOTUS will do it because of the huge amount of precedent involved in keeping marijuana legal, but the Roberts court has proven in recent years that they can pull anything out of their tookis.
I don't think the Fed ever had the legitimate right to make mj illegal in the first place, but they did.
The Fed has often twisted the commerce clause to suit it's desires of people control.
If we could just go back to smaller communities making their own decisions, that would work for me.
The fed should really only settle disputes between people and their states (like when the state violates the rights of the individual, using the Constitution as the final word. All these social laws, lifestyle laws, should be states right, or hell, I'd even say county rights.
You want a dry county, have one. You want a no-mj county, have one. You want a bible thumping religious right county, have one. You want a super liberal leftist county, have one. The people of those communities should have the ultimate say over how they live their lives. It's a flaw in governance when some people 300 miles away, or 3,000 miles away, can tell your community how to live.
Let the states decide if they want mj or not. If we could help it, I'd reduce that to counties.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If we could just go back to smaller communities making their own decisions, that would work for me.
The fed should really only settle disputes between people and their states (like when the state violates the rights of the individual, using the Constitution as the final word. All these social laws, lifestyle laws, should be states right, or hell, I'd even say county rights.
You want a dry county, have one. You want a no-mj county, have one. You want a bible thumping religious right county, have one. You want a super liberal leftist county, have one. The people of those communities should have the ultimate say over how they live their lives. It's a flaw in governance when some people 300 miles away, or 3,000 miles away, can tell your community how to live.
Let the states decide if they want mj or not. If we could help it, I'd reduce that to counties.
There are counties in Texas ran by the KKK. Should they not have been forbidden by the federal government from having a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black (bleep) in Vidor"?
What about counties and towns that don't like Jews, such as the incident in Santa Fe, Texas?
What happens if someone transports marijuana across county lines? Let's say Harris County and Travis County have legalized marijuana possession, and someone is passing through several non-mj counties...what should they be charged with if the State of Texas has a laissez-faire approach to pot?
I thought the whole point of having State Law was so that states could make laws that are contradictory to Federal Law.
I'm not American, so I've probably missed something.
The point is supposed to be that the states and the federal government make laws about different, non-overlapping areas. Federal laws govern issues that cross state lines or affect the country as a whole, like the highway system, the national currency, and declarations of war. State laws govern issues that are internal to the state, like school districts, professional licenses, and most ordinary criminal offenses. Per the Supremacy Clause, like BatterysRevenge said, federal law trumps state law where there is an overlap, but per the Tenth Amendment, the idea is supposed to be that power by default is in the hands of the states except where the Constitution explicitly says the federal government has power. The thing is that, in this interconnected age, almost everything has the potential to cross state lines, and federal legislators have gotten very good at justifying whatever they want to do under the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and a couple other vaguely enumerated powers. They have also discovered the neat trick of not exactly writing a law, but rather of offering a sum of federal money to the states only if the state writes its law a certain way. This is how much of Obamacare works, for example.
I thought the whole point of having State Law was so that states could make laws that are contradictory to Federal Law.
I'm not American, so I've probably missed something.
That's not how our system works. The Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government. The powers not granted impliedly or expressly to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. (10th amendment)
The recent situation where the states pass Marijuana laws is a bit of an extraordinary situation. As a legal matter, the federal laws are known as "the supreme law of the land" meaning that the state law that conflicts with federal law will not be valid. If a state passes a law to make something legal that the federal government makes illegal, the federal government wins and the state law will not be upheld.
However the state legislatures knew this when passing the laws. They did it anyway, not because they could triumph in court over federal regulations, but as a political maneuver to demonstrate the will of their constituency.
Obama acknowledged that and said the fact that the states have passed it demonstrates a changing viewpoint in America on the legalization of Marijuana and furthermore it was not an effective use of resources to go after Marijuana possessors. Under that, Obama has chosen not to enforce the standing federal drug regulations of Marijuana as head of the executive.
There was a time when the states were allowed to dictate the legal age of drinking. I know for a fact when my mother was a teenager the legal age to drink in Idaho was 18, to force Idaho to change the legal age to 21 the federal government threatened to cut federal spending on Idaho if they insisted on keeping the legal age at 18 for drinking.
The fact of the matter states should have some leeway on these types of issues, already the age of consent can vary by state to state why the heck should Marijuana be considered special. Especially since other states before the outright legalization have used it for medical purposes without the feds coming down hard on them in the past. This issue is absolutely hilarious to me though, the Republicans are furious that Obama isn't actively working to push the DEA to crack down on these states. The supposed "less government" is better party, is actually asking for MORE government interference.
While I actively oppose the DEA as an institution, they have better things to do with their time then come after mom and dad getting high after work in Colorado or Washington.
It seems like if you want the only true "less government" party you better go Libertarian.
There are counties in Texas ran by the KKK. Should they not have been forbidden by the federal government from having a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black (bleep) in Vidor"?
What about counties and towns that don't like Jews, such as the incident in Santa Fe, Texas?
That's not an argument of federal versus local power per se. It just so happens that in these cases the federal government are the good guys and the local government are the bad guys. If the federal government were the racists and the local government the tolerant ones - as in the many and varied conflicts between Washington and the Indian reservations - you would hardly speak up in favor of federal power there, would you? Your argument cannot be, "The federal government ought to be able to override local governments because sometimes local governments are evil", because we can just as easily reverse it to argue "Local governments ought to be able to override the federal government because sometimes the federal government is evil." You're not really taking sides on the federal-local issue; you're taking sides on the issue of social justice. And good for you, but that's not what this discussion is about.
If we could just go back to smaller communities making their own decisions, that would work for me.
The fed should really only settle disputes between people and their states (like when the state violates the rights of the individual, using the Constitution as the final word. All these social laws, lifestyle laws, should be states right, or hell, I'd even say county rights.
You want a dry county, have one. You want a no-mj county, have one. You want a bible thumping religious right county, have one. You want a super liberal leftist county, have one. The people of those communities should have the ultimate say over how they live their lives. It's a flaw in governance when some people 300 miles away, or 3,000 miles away, can tell your community how to live.
Let the states decide if they want mj or not. If we could help it, I'd reduce that to counties.
There are counties in Texas ran by the KKK. Should they not have been forbidden by the federal government from having a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black (bleep) in Vidor"?
What about counties and towns that don't like Jews, such as the incident in Santa Fe, Texas?
What happens if someone transports marijuana across county lines? Let's say Harris County and Travis County have legalized marijuana possession, and someone is passing through several non-mj counties...what should they be charged with if the State of Texas has a laissez-faire approach to pot?
First - move to the county that best suits you, or away from a county that doesn't. If you don't like county X, go live in county Y. No one is forcing you to live with people you don't like, or do not share your lifestyle choices.
Racists, creationists, prudes, and dumbasses should be able to live where they are welcome, just as much as gays, pot heads, or Amish.
The natural progression of that, is to have communities of like-minded people.
Second - If you were harmed, assaulted, falsely imprisoned, intimidated, or otherwise the victim of a crime, take your case to State court.
They test first against the Constitution, then again against the rules of your residence.
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
Or at least, this is how I believe things should be handled. Part of freedom is accepting that sometimes, and in some places, things you disagree with will be the norm.
If a group of racist homophobic nut jobs want to have a town, or a county all to themselves, they should be able to. They buy the land, build their community, so be it.
I don't like communism, so I won't be moving to China.
I like to own hand guns, so I won't be moving to Chicago, IL.
I do not like hard right Christianity, so I won't be moving to Topeka, KA.
I don't like far left liberals, so I won't be moving to Eugene or Portland.
We already have so many laws and rules and ***** being passed by every city from here to NY.
I hate the SAFE ACT, therefore, I will probably not live in New York.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either states, and cities get to pass their own ordinances, or they don't.
If places can pass more and more liberal gun grabbing bull***** laws, why can't a place pass more and more right bible thumping laws?
If I was a resident of California - I'd move away with the quickness.
California is a liberal nightmare for someone like me. But I don't get to tell the people of San Diego, or Oceanside, how to live their lives.
Nor, should they be able to tell me how to live my life, in a far off section of Oregon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There are counties in Texas ran by the KKK. Should they not have been forbidden by the federal government from having a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black (bleep) in Vidor"?
What about counties and towns that don't like Jews, such as the incident in Santa Fe, Texas?
That's not an argument of federal versus local power per se. It just so happens that in these cases the federal government are the good guys and the local government are the bad guys. If the federal government were the racists and the local government the tolerant ones - as in the many and varied conflicts between Washington and the Indian reservations - you would hardly speak up in favor of federal power there, would you? Your argument cannot be, "The federal government ought to be able to override local governments because sometimes local governments are evil", because we can just as easily reverse it to argue "Local governments ought to be able to override the federal government because sometimes the federal government is evil." You're not really taking sides on the federal-local issue; you're taking sides on the issue of social justice. And good for you, but that's not what this discussion is about.
Local governments don't take the side of tribes either, so that's not a valid argument to make. They allow O&G workers to run roughshod over people in the rez and argue that "they won't get a fair shake in a tribal court," and try them in non-tribal courts or don't try them at all.
Tocqueville argued that tyranny, whether local or federal, is still tyranny. The argument that counties should be allowed to create pseudo-theocracies because of an unspecified reason is an invalid argument to make when we have stare decisis and the Constitution explicitly not allowing a state religion. If Santa Fe, Texas, were allowed to make a Baptist government, that is a violation of law.
I'm in favor of individual liberty--not the federal government. That's an important distinction to make. It just happens that the state government wouldn't intervene in Vidor (it's scary there).
Sure, making a Baptist Government would violate the First Amendment - but having a community of Baptists does not.
Isn't that what we have already? A population dominated by Christians pushing their beliefs into law through congressional representation? At least on a local level, the Baptists/Christians can't make stem cell research, or abortion a federal issue right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
First - move to the county that best suits you, or away from a county that doesn't. If you don't like county X, go live in county Y. No one is forcing you to live with people you don't like, or do not share your lifestyle choices.
Racists, creationists, prudes, and dumbasses should be able to live where they are welcome, just as much as gays, pot heads, or Amish.
The natural progression of that, is to have communities of like-minded people.
Second - If you were harmed, assaulted, falsely imprisoned, intimidated, or otherwise the victim of a crime, take your case to State court.
They test first against the Constitution, then again against the rules of your residence.
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
Or at least, this is how I believe things should be handled. Part of freedom is accepting that sometimes, and in some places, things you disagree with will be the norm.
If a group of racist homophobic nut jobs want to have a town, or a county all to themselves, they should be able to. They buy the land, build their community, so be it.
I don't like communism, so I won't be moving to China.
I like to own hand guns, so I won't be moving to Chicago, IL.
I do not like hard right Christianity, so I won't be moving to Topeka, KA.
I don't like far left liberals, so I won't be moving to Eugene or Portland.
We already have so many laws and rules and ***** being passed by every city from here to NY.
I hate the SAFE ACT, therefore, I will probably not live in New York.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either states, and cities get to pass their own ordinances, or they don't.
If places can pass more and more liberal gun grabbing bull***** laws, why can't a place pass more and more right bible thumping laws?
If I was a resident of California - I'd move away with the quickness.
California is a liberal nightmare for someone like me. But I don't get to tell the people of San Diego, or Oceanside, how to live their lives.
Nor, should they be able to tell me how to live my life, in a far off section of Oregon.
What a simplistic worldview. What if we have cases like the one in Montana where a bunch of white supremacists decided to move to a town of 12 people and take over the county government? Should the one black couple have moved because of a white supremacist plot? What about the libertarian plot in Loving County, Texas, where a con man wanted to buy up all the deeds and establish a libertarian government that would legalize dueling and incest? Never mind the fact that it's easy to say "just move" when you've never had to pay a mortgage or moving costs.
You're advocating Balkanization and ethnic cleansing. So people would have to ghettoize themselves or be forced to move to a place where they may not necessarily want to live. This increases ethnic, class, and racial tensions. There have been recent publications discussing how the rich have isolated themselves in neighborhoods surrounded by other rich people and are severely out of touch with what is going on in Main Street America. Is this what you want for everyone? Blacks only with blacks, liberals only with liberals, Muslims only with Muslims. I went to a university that was 80% minority and we didn't have any issues with racial tension.
Second, the law applies to you no matter what county you're in under current law. If you're a marijuana vendor and have to transport your marijuana to a show many counties away and pass through a prohibitionist county, you're subject to the county's rules you pass through, period. It's like saying non-citizens don't have to abide by our laws and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law.
Sure, making a Baptist Government would violate the First Amendment - but having a community of Baptists does not.
Isn't that what we have already? A population dominated by Christians pushing their beliefs into law through congressional representation? At least on a local level, the Baptists/Christians can't make stem cell research, or abortion a federal issue right?
This is what you said: "You want a dry county, have one. You want a no-mj county, have one. You want a bible thumping religious right county, have one. You want a super liberal leftist county, have one. The people of those communities should have the ultimate say over how they live their lives. It's a flaw in governance when some people 300 miles away, or 3,000 miles away, can tell your community how to live."
You seem to conflate communities with governments. Which one is it? There are towns with several different communities with geographic separations. Tyler, Texas is divided by railroad tracks into a black and working poor side and a white and middle class side. That's a separate issue from their government and what they decide.
Tocqueville argued that tyranny, whether local or federal, is still tyranny. The argument that counties should be allowed to create pseudo-theocracies because of an unspecified reason is an invalid argument to make when we have stare decisis and the Constitution explicitly not allowing a state religion. If Santa Fe, Texas, were allowed to make a Baptist government, that is a violation of law.
That's kind of my point. What you're arguing for is checks and balances on the power of all governments in the name of justice - not a position that the federal or the local government ought to be supreme over the other. I certainly agree with you, but it's not especially relevant to this topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First - move to the county that best suits you, or away from a county that doesn't. If you don't like county X, go live in county Y. No one is forcing you to live with people you don't like, or do not share your lifestyle choices.
Racists, creationists, prudes, and dumbasses should be able to live where they are welcome, just as much as gays, pot heads, or Amish.
The natural progression of that, is to have communities of like-minded people.
Second - If you were harmed, assaulted, falsely imprisoned, intimidated, or otherwise the victim of a crime, take your case to State court.
They test first against the Constitution, then again against the rules of your residence.
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
Or at least, this is how I believe things should be handled. Part of freedom is accepting that sometimes, and in some places, things you disagree with will be the norm.
If a group of racist homophobic nut jobs want to have a town, or a county all to themselves, they should be able to. They buy the land, build their community, so be it.
I don't like communism, so I won't be moving to China.
I like to own hand guns, so I won't be moving to Chicago, IL.
I do not like hard right Christianity, so I won't be moving to Topeka, KA.
I don't like far left liberals, so I won't be moving to Eugene or Portland.
We already have so many laws and rules and ***** being passed by every city from here to NY.
I hate the SAFE ACT, therefore, I will probably not live in New York.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either states, and cities get to pass their own ordinances, or they don't.
If places can pass more and more liberal gun grabbing bull***** laws, why can't a place pass more and more right bible thumping laws?
If I was a resident of California - I'd move away with the quickness.
California is a liberal nightmare for someone like me. But I don't get to tell the people of San Diego, or Oceanside, how to live their lives.
Nor, should they be able to tell me how to live my life, in a far off section of Oregon.
What a simplistic worldview. What if we have cases like the one in Montana where a bunch of white supremacists decided to move to a town of 12 people and take over the county government? Should the one black couple have moved because of a white supremacist plot? What about the libertarian plot in Loving County, Texas, where a con man wanted to buy up all the deeds and establish a libertarian government that would legalize dueling and incest? Never mind the fact that it's easy to say "just move" when you've never had to pay a mortgage or moving costs.
I've moved 15+ times, lived in 4 states - I went to 13 schools in three states BEFORE starting high school.
...and no, it wasn't a military thing.
Also, people can buy land. Like minded people can buy up lots of land. Wasn't it rich people who bought up Aspen?
You're advocating Balkanization and ethnic cleansing. So people would have to ghettoize themselves or be forced to move to a place where they may not necessarily want to live. This increases ethnic, class, and racial tensions. There have been recent publications discussing how the rich have isolated themselves in neighborhoods surrounded by other rich people and are severely out of touch with what is going on in Main Street America. Is this what you want for everyone? Blacks only with blacks, liberals only with liberals, Muslims only with Muslims. I went to a university that was 80% minority and we didn't have any issues with racial tension.
Who has the simplistic worldview?
It isn't me.
We already HAVE blacks with blacks, poor with poor, liberals with liberals.
And if you don't think they control their voting districts, smh.
Also, ethnic cleansing? Really? Yeah, because anything I've said is remotely close to "ethnic cleansing".
Second, the law applies to you no matter what county you're in under current law. If you're a marijuana vendor and have to transport your marijuana to a show many counties away and pass through a prohibitionist county, you're subject to the county's rules you pass through, period. It's like saying non-citizens don't have to abide by our laws and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law.
Within the borders of this nation, we can travel without passports, and without driver checks at every border.
When I pass from Oregon to Idaho, I do not have to stop at a checkpoint.
I do not need to show my ID at the Washington border before I'm allowed in. I can drive from Oregon to Arizona without so much as traffic stop.
So too, should someone from Colorado, who is legally able to possess MJ, be able to drive through Wyoming, on their way home, without passing through checkpoints, or showing passports.
Now you're going to say, "what if they get pulled over for speeding?"
Okay, write them a speeding ticket. If they live in Colorado, and they have some weed on them, I believe it is outside the Wyoming officers powers (or should be anyways) to confiscate and arrest a citizen and resident of Denver, Colorado just because they were passing through Cheyenne.
That is not justice, nor is it the freedom to move about the country without undue burden.
It's like this bro.
Am I forced to remain living where I live? Can I leave, or must I stay?
If I can leave, if I'm free to go wherever I like, then it isn't necessary for the community to adapt to ME. I can either hate living where I live, I can adapt to the community, or I can find someplace else more suitable.
If not, if I am literally forced to live there and can't leave, then you're damn right I'm going to ***** and moan and vote until the community adapts to me.
If I don't like the heat and humidity, do I HAVE TO live in South carolina, or East Texas?
Or can I move to Barrow Alaska, where I love the cold and months without daylight.
If I don't like rich, corrupt, megalomaniacs, do I HAVE TO keep living in Hewlett Bay? Or can I move away, and find a more rural, down to earth place to live?
If they live in Colorado, and they have some weed on them, I believe it is outside the Wyoming officers powers (or should be anyways) to confiscate and arrest a citizen and resident of Denver, Colorado just because they were passing through Cheyenne.
That is not justice, nor is it the freedom to move about the country without undue burden.
That's ridiculous. They are in Wyoming. They are subject to Wyoming law. You yourself acknowledge this when you grant the Wyoming state patrol the power to write them speeding tickets, which are the enforcement mechanism for another Wyoming law. There is absolutely nothing "undue" about the burden of suffering the consequences for breaking the law in the place you're traveling through.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There are counties in Texas ran by the KKK. Should they not have been forbidden by the federal government from having a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black (bleep) in Vidor"?
What about counties and towns that don't like Jews, such as the incident in Santa Fe, Texas?
What happens if someone transports marijuana across county lines? Let's say Harris County and Travis County have legalized marijuana possession, and someone is passing through several non-mj counties...what should they be charged with if the State of Texas has a laissez-faire approach to pot?
Counties are generally instrumentalities of the state. Thus actions taken by the county such as messages are considered state action.
Under what law can the federal government "forbid" the county from having a racially charged sign?
In some cases, the commerce clause can prohibit discrimination if laws pursuant to antidiscrimination policies are passed by congress, but more on point, here the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment would proscribe such behvior.
The EPC says in relevant part: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In this case, the actions taken by the county(as instrumentality of the state) with discriminatory intent would be violative of equal protection clause.
Just saying in this case, there is less of a federal government vs state government issue as opposed to a state government vs Constitution of the United States issue.
Why do the states have to follow the 14th amendment?
1) We had a civil war and the south lost.
2) The states ratified the amendment
At any rate, the issue with the county lines is moot because counties are instrumentalities of the state. I can't speak for all states, but here in Virginia, county and city ordinances are "preempted" by virginia state law. In the same manner that federal law is the "supreme law of the land", Virginia law is the supreme law of the land here in Virginia, overriding any contrary county law or city ordinance.
Counties are formed by act of the state legislatures. In your case people who violate those ordinances can challenge those ordinances in state court (and win) if the state of texas allows it.
I'm gay, and legally married in Mass.
Do me and my husband suddenly become unmarried because I happen to be passing through Oklahoma?
No.
Then certainly, as a resident of Colorado, I shouldn't suddenly become a criminal because I happen to be passing through Arizona.
If you are using Marijuana pursuant to whatever legal right the state of Colorado has given you, and such legal right contravenes federal regulation, then as a legal matter, you are a criminal now and you will remain a criminal when you happen to be passing through Arizona.
Federal Law trumps state law. Just because Obama isn't enforcing those laws with respect to Marijuana doesn't mean the laws aren't on the books.
No no, I totally understand that, and I get B_S's point. That's how it currently works.
I also understand that just because Obama isn't enforcing the law, doesn't mean you aren't breaking it.
I also understand that just because I can carry where I live, doesn't mean I could carry in NYC.
But I'm talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
I think the GOP is wrong here, not as a matter of current law (because they're technically right), but as a matter of principle.
It shouldn't be illegal to use, possess, or even to grow and produce the stuff.
I am not a user, or producer, I am for more freedoms. This being a personal freedom issue for me, and not one of morality or whatever.
[
I've moved 15+ times, lived in 4 states - I went to 13 schools in three states BEFORE starting high school.
...and no, it wasn't a military thing.
Also, people can buy land. Like minded people can buy up lots of land. Wasn't it rich people who bought up Aspen?
You're advocating Balkanization and ethnic cleansing. So people would have to ghettoize themselves or be forced to move to a place where they may not necessarily want to live. This increases ethnic, class, and racial tensions. There have been recent publications discussing how the rich have isolated themselves in neighborhoods surrounded by other rich people and are severely out of touch with what is going on in Main Street America. Is this what you want for everyone? Blacks only with blacks, liberals only with liberals, Muslims only with Muslims. I went to a university that was 80% minority and we didn't have any issues with racial tension.
Who has the simplistic worldview?
It isn't me.
We already HAVE blacks with blacks, poor with poor, liberals with liberals.
And if you don't think they control their voting districts, smh.
Also, ethnic cleansing? Really? Yeah, because anything I've said is remotely close to "ethnic cleansing".
Second, the law applies to you no matter what county you're in under current law. If you're a marijuana vendor and have to transport your marijuana to a show many counties away and pass through a prohibitionist county, you're subject to the county's rules you pass through, period. It's like saying non-citizens don't have to abide by our laws and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law.
Within the borders of this nation, we can travel without passports, and without driver checks at every border.
When I pass from Oregon to Idaho, I do not have to stop at a checkpoint.
I do not need to show my ID at the Washington border before I'm allowed in. I can drive from Oregon to Arizona without so much as traffic stop.
So too, should someone from Colorado, who is legally able to possess MJ, be able to drive through Wyoming, on their way home, without passing through checkpoints, or showing passports.
Now you're going to say, "what if they get pulled over for speeding?"
Okay, write them a speeding ticket. If they live in Colorado, and they have some weed on them, I believe it is outside the Wyoming officers powers (or should be anyways) to confiscate and arrest a citizen and resident of Denver, Colorado just because they were passing through Cheyenne.
That is not justice, nor is it the freedom to move about the country without undue burden.
It's like this bro.
Am I forced to remain living where I live? Can I leave, or must I stay?
If I can leave, if I'm free to go wherever I like, then it isn't necessary for the community to adapt to ME. I can either hate living where I live, I can adapt to the community, or I can find someplace else more suitable.
If not, if I am literally forced to live there and can't leave, then you're damn right I'm going to ***** and moan and vote until the community adapts to me.
If I don't like the heat and humidity, do I HAVE TO live in South carolina, or East Texas?
Or can I move to Barrow Alaska, where I love the cold and months without daylight.
If I don't like rich, corrupt, megalomaniacs, do I HAVE TO keep living in Hewlett Bay? Or can I move away, and find a more rural, down to earth place to live?
If your parents were able to move that many times and buy up land, then maybe that explains your worldview. Rich kids don't understand that moving costs a lot of money. It costs $1200 to rent a moving van from California to Texas. If you have that type of money, then I won't waste my breath explaining the value of a dollar amongst poor folks.
Ethnic cleansing means that people of a certain ethnic group are forced to move out en masse. If the bigots of Tyler, Texas, decide they don't want blacks in Tyler, they can pass laws unfriendly to blacks and be general jerks, forcing them to move. It doesn't mean Bosnia.
Diversity in a neighborhood depends on where you are, but legislation exacerbates this. Looking at the Houston Ship Channel, legislation caused minorities to move there. Jim Crow laws and housing prices forced people to move to more polluted areas.
Governments shouldn't pass laws that discriminate in law or in fact. With the type of unrestrained government you're asking for, it's ripe for tyranny.
Title basically says it all.
I just enjoy poking at the Republicans whenever they do things that explicitly crack down on state rights.
Hypocrisy. Yay.
Warning for spam. - Blinking Spirit
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not American, so I've probably missed something.
Art is life itself.
And before anyone wants to whine about "racist" justifications of marijuana legalization, save it for Florida Stand Your Ground laws, I don't want to hear about your convenient allyship.
No, there is a clause in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law has the final say when states make laws contradictory to federal statutes, the Constitution, and case law. The federal government has declared marijuana a Schedule I substance, meaning it has no legitimate use, medical or otherwise, and is highly addictive. They have the final say on marijuana, and it will take a literal act of Congress or a Supreme Court case to reverse this. Not sure if the SCOTUS will do it because of the huge amount of precedent involved in keeping marijuana legal, but the Roberts court has proven in recent years that they can pull anything out of their tookis.
The Fed has often twisted the commerce clause to suit it's desires of people control.
If we could just go back to smaller communities making their own decisions, that would work for me.
The fed should really only settle disputes between people and their states (like when the state violates the rights of the individual, using the Constitution as the final word. All these social laws, lifestyle laws, should be states right, or hell, I'd even say county rights.
You want a dry county, have one. You want a no-mj county, have one. You want a bible thumping religious right county, have one. You want a super liberal leftist county, have one. The people of those communities should have the ultimate say over how they live their lives. It's a flaw in governance when some people 300 miles away, or 3,000 miles away, can tell your community how to live.
Let the states decide if they want mj or not. If we could help it, I'd reduce that to counties.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There are counties in Texas ran by the KKK. Should they not have been forbidden by the federal government from having a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black (bleep) in Vidor"?
What about counties and towns that don't like Jews, such as the incident in Santa Fe, Texas?
What happens if someone transports marijuana across county lines? Let's say Harris County and Travis County have legalized marijuana possession, and someone is passing through several non-mj counties...what should they be charged with if the State of Texas has a laissez-faire approach to pot?
The point is supposed to be that the states and the federal government make laws about different, non-overlapping areas. Federal laws govern issues that cross state lines or affect the country as a whole, like the highway system, the national currency, and declarations of war. State laws govern issues that are internal to the state, like school districts, professional licenses, and most ordinary criminal offenses. Per the Supremacy Clause, like BatterysRevenge said, federal law trumps state law where there is an overlap, but per the Tenth Amendment, the idea is supposed to be that power by default is in the hands of the states except where the Constitution explicitly says the federal government has power. The thing is that, in this interconnected age, almost everything has the potential to cross state lines, and federal legislators have gotten very good at justifying whatever they want to do under the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and a couple other vaguely enumerated powers. They have also discovered the neat trick of not exactly writing a law, but rather of offering a sum of federal money to the states only if the state writes its law a certain way. This is how much of Obamacare works, for example.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's not how our system works. The Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government. The powers not granted impliedly or expressly to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. (10th amendment)
The recent situation where the states pass Marijuana laws is a bit of an extraordinary situation. As a legal matter, the federal laws are known as "the supreme law of the land" meaning that the state law that conflicts with federal law will not be valid. If a state passes a law to make something legal that the federal government makes illegal, the federal government wins and the state law will not be upheld.
However the state legislatures knew this when passing the laws. They did it anyway, not because they could triumph in court over federal regulations, but as a political maneuver to demonstrate the will of their constituency.
Obama acknowledged that and said the fact that the states have passed it demonstrates a changing viewpoint in America on the legalization of Marijuana and furthermore it was not an effective use of resources to go after Marijuana possessors. Under that, Obama has chosen not to enforce the standing federal drug regulations of Marijuana as head of the executive.
The fact of the matter states should have some leeway on these types of issues, already the age of consent can vary by state to state why the heck should Marijuana be considered special. Especially since other states before the outright legalization have used it for medical purposes without the feds coming down hard on them in the past. This issue is absolutely hilarious to me though, the Republicans are furious that Obama isn't actively working to push the DEA to crack down on these states. The supposed "less government" is better party, is actually asking for MORE government interference.
While I actively oppose the DEA as an institution, they have better things to do with their time then come after mom and dad getting high after work in Colorado or Washington.
It seems like if you want the only true "less government" party you better go Libertarian.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First - move to the county that best suits you, or away from a county that doesn't. If you don't like county X, go live in county Y. No one is forcing you to live with people you don't like, or do not share your lifestyle choices.
Racists, creationists, prudes, and dumbasses should be able to live where they are welcome, just as much as gays, pot heads, or Amish.
The natural progression of that, is to have communities of like-minded people.
Second - If you were harmed, assaulted, falsely imprisoned, intimidated, or otherwise the victim of a crime, take your case to State court.
They test first against the Constitution, then again against the rules of your residence.
Third - If you are merely passing through a county that prohibits something you do, and you get stopped, show your ID demonstrating you do not reside there. The officer of the law should allow you to carry on your way, since their laws should only apply to the people who live there.
If the people who live there don't want pot, okay. But they can't force anything on people who don't live there.
Or at least, this is how I believe things should be handled. Part of freedom is accepting that sometimes, and in some places, things you disagree with will be the norm.
If a group of racist homophobic nut jobs want to have a town, or a county all to themselves, they should be able to. They buy the land, build their community, so be it.
I don't like communism, so I won't be moving to China.
I like to own hand guns, so I won't be moving to Chicago, IL.
I do not like hard right Christianity, so I won't be moving to Topeka, KA.
I don't like far left liberals, so I won't be moving to Eugene or Portland.
We already have so many laws and rules and ***** being passed by every city from here to NY.
I hate the SAFE ACT, therefore, I will probably not live in New York.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either states, and cities get to pass their own ordinances, or they don't.
If places can pass more and more liberal gun grabbing bull***** laws, why can't a place pass more and more right bible thumping laws?
If I was a resident of California - I'd move away with the quickness.
California is a liberal nightmare for someone like me. But I don't get to tell the people of San Diego, or Oceanside, how to live their lives.
Nor, should they be able to tell me how to live my life, in a far off section of Oregon.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Local governments don't take the side of tribes either, so that's not a valid argument to make. They allow O&G workers to run roughshod over people in the rez and argue that "they won't get a fair shake in a tribal court," and try them in non-tribal courts or don't try them at all.
Tocqueville argued that tyranny, whether local or federal, is still tyranny. The argument that counties should be allowed to create pseudo-theocracies because of an unspecified reason is an invalid argument to make when we have stare decisis and the Constitution explicitly not allowing a state religion. If Santa Fe, Texas, were allowed to make a Baptist government, that is a violation of law.
I'm in favor of individual liberty--not the federal government. That's an important distinction to make. It just happens that the state government wouldn't intervene in Vidor (it's scary there).
Isn't that what we have already? A population dominated by Christians pushing their beliefs into law through congressional representation? At least on a local level, the Baptists/Christians can't make stem cell research, or abortion a federal issue right?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What a simplistic worldview. What if we have cases like the one in Montana where a bunch of white supremacists decided to move to a town of 12 people and take over the county government? Should the one black couple have moved because of a white supremacist plot? What about the libertarian plot in Loving County, Texas, where a con man wanted to buy up all the deeds and establish a libertarian government that would legalize dueling and incest? Never mind the fact that it's easy to say "just move" when you've never had to pay a mortgage or moving costs.
You're advocating Balkanization and ethnic cleansing. So people would have to ghettoize themselves or be forced to move to a place where they may not necessarily want to live. This increases ethnic, class, and racial tensions. There have been recent publications discussing how the rich have isolated themselves in neighborhoods surrounded by other rich people and are severely out of touch with what is going on in Main Street America. Is this what you want for everyone? Blacks only with blacks, liberals only with liberals, Muslims only with Muslims. I went to a university that was 80% minority and we didn't have any issues with racial tension.
Second, the law applies to you no matter what county you're in under current law. If you're a marijuana vendor and have to transport your marijuana to a show many counties away and pass through a prohibitionist county, you're subject to the county's rules you pass through, period. It's like saying non-citizens don't have to abide by our laws and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law.
This is what you said: "You want a dry county, have one. You want a no-mj county, have one. You want a bible thumping religious right county, have one. You want a super liberal leftist county, have one. The people of those communities should have the ultimate say over how they live their lives. It's a flaw in governance when some people 300 miles away, or 3,000 miles away, can tell your community how to live."
You seem to conflate communities with governments. Which one is it? There are towns with several different communities with geographic separations. Tyler, Texas is divided by railroad tracks into a black and working poor side and a white and middle class side. That's a separate issue from their government and what they decide.
That's kind of my point. What you're arguing for is checks and balances on the power of all governments in the name of justice - not a position that the federal or the local government ought to be supreme over the other. I certainly agree with you, but it's not especially relevant to this topic.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've moved 15+ times, lived in 4 states - I went to 13 schools in three states BEFORE starting high school.
...and no, it wasn't a military thing.
Also, people can buy land. Like minded people can buy up lots of land. Wasn't it rich people who bought up Aspen?
Who has the simplistic worldview?
It isn't me.
We already HAVE blacks with blacks, poor with poor, liberals with liberals.
And if you don't think they control their voting districts, smh.
Also, ethnic cleansing? Really? Yeah, because anything I've said is remotely close to "ethnic cleansing".
Within the borders of this nation, we can travel without passports, and without driver checks at every border.
When I pass from Oregon to Idaho, I do not have to stop at a checkpoint.
I do not need to show my ID at the Washington border before I'm allowed in. I can drive from Oregon to Arizona without so much as traffic stop.
So too, should someone from Colorado, who is legally able to possess MJ, be able to drive through Wyoming, on their way home, without passing through checkpoints, or showing passports.
Now you're going to say, "what if they get pulled over for speeding?"
Okay, write them a speeding ticket. If they live in Colorado, and they have some weed on them, I believe it is outside the Wyoming officers powers (or should be anyways) to confiscate and arrest a citizen and resident of Denver, Colorado just because they were passing through Cheyenne.
That is not justice, nor is it the freedom to move about the country without undue burden.
It's like this bro.
Am I forced to remain living where I live? Can I leave, or must I stay?
If I can leave, if I'm free to go wherever I like, then it isn't necessary for the community to adapt to ME. I can either hate living where I live, I can adapt to the community, or I can find someplace else more suitable.
If not, if I am literally forced to live there and can't leave, then you're damn right I'm going to ***** and moan and vote until the community adapts to me.
If I don't like the heat and humidity, do I HAVE TO live in South carolina, or East Texas?
Or can I move to Barrow Alaska, where I love the cold and months without daylight.
If I don't like rich, corrupt, megalomaniacs, do I HAVE TO keep living in Hewlett Bay? Or can I move away, and find a more rural, down to earth place to live?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Counties are generally instrumentalities of the state. Thus actions taken by the county such as messages are considered state action.
Under what law can the federal government "forbid" the county from having a racially charged sign?
In some cases, the commerce clause can prohibit discrimination if laws pursuant to antidiscrimination policies are passed by congress, but more on point, here the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment would proscribe such behvior.
The EPC says in relevant part:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In this case, the actions taken by the county(as instrumentality of the state) with discriminatory intent would be violative of equal protection clause.
Just saying in this case, there is less of a federal government vs state government issue as opposed to a state government vs Constitution of the United States issue.
Why do the states have to follow the 14th amendment?
1) We had a civil war and the south lost.
2) The states ratified the amendment
At any rate, the issue with the county lines is moot because counties are instrumentalities of the state. I can't speak for all states, but here in Virginia, county and city ordinances are "preempted" by virginia state law. In the same manner that federal law is the "supreme law of the land", Virginia law is the supreme law of the land here in Virginia, overriding any contrary county law or city ordinance.
Counties are formed by act of the state legislatures. In your case people who violate those ordinances can challenge those ordinances in state court (and win) if the state of texas allows it.
I'm gay, and legally married in Mass.
Do me and my husband suddenly become unmarried because I happen to be passing through Oklahoma?
No.
Then certainly, as a resident of Colorado, I shouldn't suddenly become a criminal because I happen to be passing through Arizona.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If you are using Marijuana pursuant to whatever legal right the state of Colorado has given you, and such legal right contravenes federal regulation, then as a legal matter, you are a criminal now and you will remain a criminal when you happen to be passing through Arizona.
Federal Law trumps state law. Just because Obama isn't enforcing those laws with respect to Marijuana doesn't mean the laws aren't on the books.
I also understand that just because Obama isn't enforcing the law, doesn't mean you aren't breaking it.
I also understand that just because I can carry where I live, doesn't mean I could carry in NYC.
But I'm talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
I think the GOP is wrong here, not as a matter of current law (because they're technically right), but as a matter of principle.
It shouldn't be illegal to use, possess, or even to grow and produce the stuff.
I am not a user, or producer, I am for more freedoms. This being a personal freedom issue for me, and not one of morality or whatever.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If your parents were able to move that many times and buy up land, then maybe that explains your worldview. Rich kids don't understand that moving costs a lot of money. It costs $1200 to rent a moving van from California to Texas. If you have that type of money, then I won't waste my breath explaining the value of a dollar amongst poor folks.
Ethnic cleansing means that people of a certain ethnic group are forced to move out en masse. If the bigots of Tyler, Texas, decide they don't want blacks in Tyler, they can pass laws unfriendly to blacks and be general jerks, forcing them to move. It doesn't mean Bosnia.
Diversity in a neighborhood depends on where you are, but legislation exacerbates this. Looking at the Houston Ship Channel, legislation caused minorities to move there. Jim Crow laws and housing prices forced people to move to more polluted areas.
Governments shouldn't pass laws that discriminate in law or in fact. With the type of unrestrained government you're asking for, it's ripe for tyranny.