Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Concerning treaties, Article 6 states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I am referring to the legal precedent being established concerning states' rights. The US is establishing that precedent concerning the right of the State of the United States to nullify the duly constituted interstate authority of the UN.

---

The UN has no interstate authority.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

That isn't an answer.

Do you take illegal substances? Have you ever been arrested for taking illegal substances? Have you ever been arrested for selling illegal substances?

---

I love how he always avoids the question.

Do you understand a word he's saying?

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

The UN has no interstate authority.

---

THANK YOU! Screw the UN! We shouldn't even belong to it! Just ask Ron Paul.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

You have stated this falsehood often.

Prohibition is a form of regulation. You don't like it that it does, but it does.

You can regulate a product out of business. Take a legal drug with a nasty little side effect... like DDT. When the side effects were known, it was banned from the marketplace... via a regulatory body.

Even you have said that it is legal and permissible to ban certain products... I think the example I used was that the right to bear arms doesn not include nukes.

Danny... I know you had a lot of time in lockup to think about this... but it doesn't change anything.

---

I have always disagreed that Prohibition is a form of Regulation. It is not. Regulation implies that there are governmental controls concerning its use. Prohibition removes those controls and simply renders it illegal. I now, also contend, that the federal government should be required to fulfill its obligation to Regulate interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs.

In my opinion, nukes are regulated by the power established in A1S8 concerning congress power to regulated the military.

In any event, it is still my contention, that there has been established a "recreational drug" category, implied-in-fact, by the lack of prohibition of all powerful, mood altering drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I have always disagreed that Prohibition is a form of Regulation. It is not. Regulation implies that there are governmental controls concerning its use. Prohibition removes those controls and simply renders it illegal. I now, also contend, that the federal government should be required to fulfill its obligation to Regulate interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs.

In my opinion, nukes are regulated by the power established in A1S8 concerning congress power to regulated the military.

In any event, it is still my contention, that there has been established a "recreational drug" category, implied-in-fact, by the lack of prohibition of all powerful, mood altering drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

---

Looks like somebody's made good use of the jail library. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Okay Daniel.

From what I get from your thread, you want to have sex, dope, and not obey the law.

Is that right?

---

Actually, it all started out as an innocent inquiry into the theory of nullification concerning states' rights and legal precedent. It is my contention that legal precedent concerning states' rights is being established at the federal level in its dealings with the UN.

I further contend, that the present precedent being established at the federal level can be used by the several states in their dealings with the general government of the Union.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

The UN has no interstate authority.

---

I see someone didn't spend enough time at the jail library.

Quote:

---

The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

Source: ICJ

---

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

It could be regulated in the same manner as any other legal drug.

---

No it couldn't. Most people can't grow heroin or produce narcotics in their kitchen ... most people cannot manufacture Ecstacy in their bedroom, etc.

They are not the same.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

That isn't an answer.

Do you take illegal substances? Have you ever been arrested for taking illegal substances? Have you ever been arrested for selling illegal substances?

---

I plead the Ninth on the first question and No to all of the other questions.

I have also not resorted to fallacy in my argumentation, either.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

No it couldn't. Most people can't grow heroin or produce narcotics in their kitchen ... most people cannot manufacture Ecstacy in their bedroom, etc.

They are not the same.

- Carl

---

I disagree. If a person can grow one plant, they are on their way to being qualified to grow another plant.

Most people do not want to manufacture their own beer either, and that is legal.

If they were for sale, most drugs would probably be purchased in the same manner as any other recreational drug that is currently legal.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I love how he always avoids the question.

Do you understand a word he's saying?

---

I also do not resort to the fallacy of non sequitur if I have enough logic and reason to present a cogent argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

If it were for sale, most drugs would probably be purchased in the same manner as any other recreational drug that is currently legal.

---

No they wouldn't. Product liability laws, lawsuits, insurance, and a host of other factors would come into play to make commercial manufacture and sale of intoxicating drugs economically unfeasible. And if they WERE produced, they would not be nearly the same potency as today's street drugs so we would still have dangerous street drugs being passed out on the streets.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

No they wouldn't. Product liability laws, lawsuits, insurance, and a host of other factors would come into play to make commercial manufacture and sale of intoxicating drugs economically unfeasible. And if they WERE produced, they would not be nearly the same potency as today's street drugs so we would still have dangerous street drugs being passed out on the streets.

- Carl

---

We may have to agree to disagree. However, in my opinion, legislating a recreational drug category would be no worse than what we currently have now, and we could be generating a substantial amount of tax revenue, and not expending such revenue on forms of prohibition that have never worked in the history of the US.

I think your position would be more credible if there were no abuse of legal drugs that require a prescription.

A recreational drug category could reduce the occurrence of legal drug abuse.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I think your position would be more credible if there were no abuse of legal drugs that require a prescription.

A recreational drug category could reduce the occurrence of legal drug abuse.

---

Ah ... so ... ABC pharmacy that makes crystal meth for recreational use would NOT be sued when users OD'd, died, became vegetables, beat their wives, beat their kids, or became brain dead? You really think so?

If you review a number of product liability suits for legal products - including pharmaceuticals - there are already a multitude of lawsuits out there. What keeps the prices on prescription meds down is that they also have a legitimate medical use - most recreational drugs do NOT have such a use.

So, you are talking about a product that when used as intended stands a high chance of doing great harm ... unless we create an unheard of exception to liability laws, no pharmaceutical company will be willing to take this on.

Tobacco companies still lose lawsuits by smokers and we have known smoking is bad for you for 30+ years! Drug manufacturers get sued every week. You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap. And ti just goes on.

No, sorry, no one is going to be willing to open themselves up to that kind of liability. If they did, the price would be so high as to be prohibitive or the potency would be greatly reduced. And, likely, street drugs would be far cheaper and more potent.

Even in those European nations where many drugs are legal, they have a HUGE illicit drug problem. Legalization has not been the panacea.



- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Unless the feds carve out an unheard of exemption to product liability laws, NO ONE is going to make street level heroin, cocaine, meth., etc. Anyone who tried would soon be sued into oblivion.

- Carl

---

In the conventional format, no - but consider if the Controlled Substances Act were repealed, and you could once again walk into a pharmacy and get anything you wanted without a physician's prescription...Already available in pharmaceutical grade minus those pesky undesirable street variations/additives:

- Ritalin/Concerta/Adderall is pharmaceutical methamphetamine and highly abused

- Oxycontin/Vicodin/Percocet/Dilaudid etc are drugs of choice amongst opiate addicts

- Benzodiazepines

- Other sedatives/hypnotics/tranquilizers

And even when used as prescribed currently they pose a great deal of risk depending upon the population they are prescribed to. I have yet to hear of an outpouring of liability lawsuits against the makers of any of the narcotic opiates from whose abuse many people die every year. There was some initial buzz surrounding the liability for the makers of Oxycontin but that has died down.

I don't foresee great leaps/bounds in product liability so long as the instructions remained the same, were the federal controls removed on these drugs.

I fear I'm in agreement with Palos. Scary as that may be, he does have a point.

Carl, heres some homework for you:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Read what you fellow brother-in-blue say about the War on Taxpayers! Wait, did I say that? I meant "war on drugs".

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

A recreational drug category could reduce the occurrence of legal drug abuse.

---

Of greater concern is drug abuse period regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal - mind altering substances are mind altering substances.

Having drugs illegal doesn't reduce demand or reduce the problem.

Having drugs legalized creates a whole host of other problems.

Perhaps having drugs decriminalized is a better solution because I have a concern that legalizing drugs tells kids that they are safe or okay to use - and they aren't.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Ah ... so ... ABC pharmacy that makes crystal meth for recreational use would NOT be sued when users OD'd, died, became vegetables, beat their wives, beat their kids, or became brain dead? You really think so?

If you review a number of product liability suits for legal products - including pharmaceuticals - there are already a multitude of lawsuits out there. What keeps the prices on prescription meds down is that they also have a legitimate medical use - most recreational drugs do NOT have such a use.

So, you are talking about a product that when used as intended stands a high chance of doing great harm ... unless we create an unheard of exception to liability laws, no pharmaceutical company will be willing to take this on.

Tobacco companies still lose lawsuits by smokers and we have known smoking is bad for you for 30+ years! Drug manufacturers get sued every week. You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap. And ti just goes on.

No, sorry, no one is going to be willing to open themselves up to that kind of liability. If they did, the price would be so high as to be prohibitive or the potency would be greatly reduced. And, likely, street drugs would be far cheaper and more potent.

Even in those European nations where many drugs are legal, they have a HUGE illicit drug problem. Legalization has not been the panacea.

- Carl

---

I think an important question to ask is "are the drug problems and costs of addiction to those societies where drugs are legal or decriminalized greater or less than the size of the drug problem in the USA and the costs of addiction to American society in the form of courts, jails, prisons, theft, other property damage, and huge health care costs?"

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Ah ... so ... ABC pharmacy that makes crystal meth for recreational use would NOT be sued when users OD'd, died, became vegetables, beat their wives, beat their kids, or became brain dead? You really think so?

If you review a number of product liability suits for legal products - including pharmaceuticals - there are already a multitude of lawsuits out there. What keeps the prices on prescription meds down is that they also have a legitimate medical use - most recreational drugs do NOT have such a use.

So, you are talking about a product that when used as intended stands a high chance of doing great harm ... unless we create an unheard of exception to liability laws, no pharmaceutical company will be willing to take this on.

Tobacco companies still lose lawsuits by smokers and we have known smoking is bad for you for 30+ years! Drug manufacturers get sued every week. You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap. And ti just goes on.

No, sorry, no one is going to be willing to open themselves up to that kind of liability. If they did, the price would be so high as to be prohibitive or the potency would be greatly reduced. And, likely, street drugs would be far cheaper and more potent.

Even in those European nations where many drugs are legal, they have a HUGE illicit drug problem. Legalization has not been the panacea.



- Carl

---

You are probably resorting to a popular misconception of a hypothetical, recreational drug category. No one is suggesting that recreational drugs would not have an FDA warning label. Also, why would ABC pharmacy not create a better product at lower cost to the individual consumer? We can already agree that they would not set up a lab in the employee bathroom to keep to an "original" recipe.

I still have to disagree with you concerning drugs. Most pharmaceuticals know they are taking a risk when creating new substances and that is one reason they have clinical trials and obtain FDA approval. A recreational drug category would simply provide the FDA with guidelines for drugs in such a category.

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

Of greater concern is drug abuse period regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal - mind altering substances are mind altering substances.

Having drugs illegal doesn't reduce demand or reduce the problem.

Having drugs legalized creates a whole host of other problems.

Perhaps having drugs decriminalized is a better solution because I have a concern that legalizing drugs tells kids that they are safe or okay to use - and they aren't.

---

I think simple decriminalization does not solve the problem of regulating a commercial product and raising tax revenue from it. I also don't think it is much better than keeping it illegal, for those same reasons.

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

I think an important question to ask is "are the drug problems and costs of addiction to those societies where drugs are legal or decriminalized greater or less than the size of the drug problem in the USA and the costs of addiction to American society in the form of courts, jails, prisons, theft, other property damage, and huge health care costs?"

---

No they are no. In fact, they are much, much lower. The US incarcerates more people per capita than any nation in the world.

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

Of greater concern is drug abuse period regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal - mind altering substances are mind altering substances.

Having drugs illegal doesn't reduce demand or reduce the problem.

Having drugs legalized creates a whole host of other problems.

Perhaps having drugs decriminalized is a better solution because I have a concern that legalizing drugs tells kids that they are safe or okay to use - and they aren't.

---

Would you support prohibition oh alcohol as well? Both have damaging effect. Are you a Neo-Prohibitionist?

Does anyone think that any state, not just California, would be able to use the legal precedent being established by our US judiciary concerning states' rights?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Does anyone think that any state, not just California, would be able to use the legal precedent being established by our US judiciary concerning states' rights?

---

It's possible...

Dan, you need to reply in my BAC limit thread!

Couple questions:

Do you hold a law degree?

If not, do you have ANY degree?

Did you go to college?

Did you finish high school?

Have you ever been in jail?

Do you have a job?

If so, what kind of work do you do?

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Would you support prohibition oh alcohol as well? Both have damaging effect. Are you a Neo-Prohibitionist?

---

I do not think Prohibition was a good idea. It was very damaging to the treatment movement in the United States. When Prohibition was enacted, virtually every "treatment" center in the USA closed its doors and the movement was seriously set back. So no.

I would support decriminalization of most drugs. I do believe they would be safer on the whole, but please do not mistake that with my believing they would be "safe."

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

I do not think Prohibition was a good idea. It was very damaging to the treatment movement in the United States. When Prohibition was enacted, virtually every "treatment" center in the USA closed its doors and the movement was seriously set back. So no.

I would support decriminalization of most drugs. I do believe they would be safer on the whole, but please do not mistake that with my believing they would be "safe."

---

Would you support legalization of cannabis? Ii was made illegal because, in the 30's, a man testified that it "drove white women to seek sexual relations with negros". Don't you think it needs to be revisited???

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I think simple decriminalization does not solve the problem of regulating a commercial product and raising tax revenue from it. I also don't think it is much better than keeping it illegal, for those same reasons.

---

What is the economic benefit? Do you honestly believe there would be any kind of measurable boost to the US GNP if Pfizer began manufacturing Crystal Meth? Because I am with Carl on that one. No company is going to manufacture large scale LSD or Heroin or Crystal Meth in the classic street sense. They would probably be more than happy to step up production of the narcotics already approved by the FDA to be "diverted" for "recreational" use so long as they kept their labels and instructions the same. 1 pill every four hours (wink wink nudge nudge).

A more practical perspective to approach it from is the economic benefit of decriminalization on the justice system as well as the Federal government.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Would you support legalization of cannabis? Ii was made illegal because, in the 30's, a man testified that it "drove white women to seek sexual relations with negros". Don't you think it needs to be revisited???

---

I would support the legalization of cannabis if there was a sobriety test that would allow to ascertain if someone was under the influence of it or not. Presently I am only aware of drug tests for cannabis that indicate whether or not it is present. I believe in zero tolerance for driving under the influence of any mind altering substance.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

It's possible...

Dan, you need to reply in my BAC limit thread!

Couple questions:

Do you hold a law degree?

If not, do you have ANY degree?

Did you go to college?

Did you finish high school?

Have you ever been in jail?

Do you have a job?

If so, what kind of work do you do?

---

How is that relevant to the question? You may have noticed that I am not the one resorting to fallacy.

If I said no to all of the above, would that change the nature of the question or the nature of any of my answers?

Simply resorting to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem is not relevant to the issue we are discussing. I could retort that our current president has an Ivy League degree of Master in Business Administration, not a political science degree like our previous president who managed to run massive surpluses without resorting to the exportation of democracy in the guise of an invasion of another sovereign state.

One of the reasons I pose the questions I do, may be because I am not a card carrying member of the establishment. You may have read a post concerning what can sometimes happen to even highly decorated members of the bar when they question the status quo of the establishment. I have no bar association membership to lose.

just trying to learn more about you, dan.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Read what you fellow brother-in-blue say about the War on Taxpayers! Wait, did I say that? I meant "war on drugs".

---

There are also cops that think the 4th Amendment is a quaint notion and not to be followed. These officers are a minority opinion. I respect and understand their position, but do not agree with it.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

What is the economic benefit? Do you honestly believe there would be any kind of measurable boost to the US GNP if Pfizer began manufacturing Crystal Meth? Because I am with Carl on that one. No company is going to manufacture large scale LSD or Heroin or Crystal Meth in the classic street sense. They would probably be more than happy to step up production of the narcotics already approved by the FDA to be "diverted" for "recreational" use so long as they kept their labels and instructions the same. 1 pill every four hours (wink wink nudge nudge).

A more practical perspective to approach it from is the economic benefit of decriminalization on the justice system as well as the Federal government.

---

You are probably resorting to a popular misconception of a hypothetical, recreational drug category. No one is suggesting that recreational drugs would not have an FDA warning label. Also, why would ABC pharmacy not create a better product at lower cost to the individual consumer? We can already agree that they would not set up a lab in the employee bathroom to keep to an "original" recipe.

I still have to disagree with you concerning drugs. Most pharmaceuticals know they are taking a risk when creating new substances and that is one reason they have clinical trials and obtain FDA approval. A recreational drug category would simply provide the FDA with guidelines for drugs in such a category.

One economic benefit would be that of generating revenue through ensuring the various public sectors perform the specific powers enumerated to them concerning Providing for the general Welfare of the United States. We currently spend, in my opinion waste, about sixty million a year on the DEA. Even if only marijuana was legalized and Regulated according to our Constitution, it alone, could surpass the revenue generated by tobacco sales. We could be lowering our tax burden by simply complying with our Constitution.

Carl, check out my thread in Banter. :D :D

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

One of the reasons I pose the questions I do, may be because I am not a card carrying member of the establishment. You may have read a post concerning what can sometimes happen to even highly decorated members of the bar when they question the status quo of the establishment. I have no bar association membership to lose.

---

I am afraid I now have to leave you and Blueeagle to tango. I have a firm Anti-Establishment clause: I do not engage people who believe in an "establishment" in discussion. And we almost had something:)

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

I am afraid I now have to leave you and Blueeagle to tango. I have a firm Anti-Establishment clause: I do not engage people who believe in an "establishment" in discussion. And we almost had something:)

---

I noticed you didn't respond to post number 72. Did you run out of logic and reason, and are simply looking for any excuse to bail on a rational debate of the issue?

You are still welcome to discuss the theory of nullification as presented in the OP.

The theory of nullification is only languishing from disuse by the several states of the Union, not the State of the United States.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I noticed you didn't respond to post number 72.

---

Then you noticed wrong. When you stop with the RED HERRING/STRAW MAN establishment nonsense, let's talk!

Quote:

---

did you run out of logic and reason

---

You got me. I just cannot keep up with your witty and well-thought repertoire.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap.


- Carl

---

Can;t everybody just leave Stella alone.

actually, I challange anybody to show that Stella actaully recieved anything from the Mickey D/s lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Can;t everybody just leave Stella alone.

actually, I challange anybody to show that Stella actaully recieved anything from the Mickey D/s lawsuit.

---

Tricky issue as you will see below ... but ...

The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

(Daniel J. Shapiro, Punitive Damages, 43 La. B.J. 252, 254 n.1 (1995))

So, no one can really know how much she collected, but it can certainly be inferred.

- Carl

well, since all Stella wanted to begin with was $20k, I wouldn;t be surprised to find a small award. Obviously since she did have an attorney, they would expect to get paid so it surely wasn't the $20k she originally sought.

Due to non-disclosure agreements, we may never know the real truth.

and she wasn;t driving and the car was stopped.

wiki does present a pretty good summary of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case


actually this was all a ruse anyway. Daniel has a way of getting under my skin very quickly with his fallacy claim and a few other repetitve ideas and I was simply trying to derail the train.:D

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

Then you noticed wrong. When you stop with the RED HERRING/STRAW MAN establishment nonsense, let's talk!

You got me. I just cannot keep up with your witty and well-thought repertoire.

---

That is why I questioned your motives. Post number 72 doesn't have any references to the "establishment".

Someone, on another website, brought up the issue of party politics being a factor for the lack of progress on states' rights concerning the theory of nullification. That perspective, was that since we have political parties, and those individuals belonging to those parties want to be elected or re-elected to public office, they will only stand up for states' rights within the confines of their party dogma.

However, not push your tolerance for conspiracy theories, etc., I find it interesting to note that even Ron Paul has not made an issue every year of abolishing the DEA, but would rather try to bring forth legislation to abolish the fed., which, in my opinion, has a duly delegated, constitutional authority to perform a central banking function as a mostly autonomous agency of the executive branch.

From the perspective of the republican doctrine, there is no Constitutional authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs, since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.