Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

STOP IT!!! BOTH OF YOU NEED TO GROW UP!!! QUIT ARUGING LIKE CHILDREN!!!

There thats better.

---

BE, you're not planning on bringing out the "ROLLING PIN" are you?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I think you may have missed the point of the argument. A1S8 clearly gives the general government of the Union the power to:



The point is that there is no Delegated power to the general government of the Union to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs since the repeal of that delegated power.



The Tenth Amendment clearly states: 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.

---

that does not address my post which was in response to a very specific post by you. I did prove your post to be incorrect. Trying to twist it now will do no good. You lied.

You have been arguing the fed does not have the right to control interstate commerce. I posted some of the statements, from you, that make that arguement. You proved yourself wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting cissycicle

---

BE, you're not planning on bringing out the "ROLLING PIN" are you?

---

Well, the drama needs to cease. I,m aware of how peculiar Dan is at times, but that hardly vindicates this imbecilic argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Well, the drama needs to cease. I,m aware of how peculiar Dan is at times, but that hardly vindicates this imbecilic argument.

---

imbecilic arguement? I am simply calling him on his "both sides of the fence" position and supported my position after his denial. what is your problem with that?

and since this in the debate forum and it is dan's thread, why should you care?

and to your input and this last post of yours:

pot, meet kettle.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

imbecilic arguement? I am simply calling him on his "both sides of the fence" position and supported my position after his denial. what is your problem with that?

and since this in the debate forum and it is dan's thread, why should you care?

and to your input and this last post of yours:

pot, meet kettle.

---

Just ignore him, JK! Further debating him will not change his point of view. Hell, he doesn't even know that the hell he's talking about! This is probably something he thought of when he was stoned the other night!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You are still comparing apples and oranges in our federal form of government. No one is claiming states cannot pass legislation that affects its citizenry, especially if it affects the domestic tranquility of the state. However, there is no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce by the general government of the Union. Your argument would have more a basis for relevance, if there were still a prohibition amendment enumerating that power of that government.

Why was it felt that they need the legal and political precedent of a prohibition amendment, if the general government of the Union had the power you claim concerning powerful, mood altering drugs?

Regulating military materiel is a specifically enumerated power in A1S8.

I am not sure how you have any basis for your conclusion when there is no Constitutional enumeration of that power, since its repeal as a power of the general government of the Union? States' rights have more of a Constitutional basis under the Tenth Amendment concerning powers of the general government that are not specifically enumerated.

---

Boy, are you daft?

You state, with one sentence, that no one is debating whether or not states can regulate and prohibit certain transactions within their borders and then say that you don't understand how anyone can prohibit anything.

The federal government was founded and designed for just this purpose. To regulate matters that manifested between and among the states.

I will wait while you dig out that dog eared copy of the Constitution that your Grammy gave you at your bar mitzvah.

If a state can legalize (and, conversely, make illegal) a substance, so can the fed when interstate transportation is made.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Boy, are you daft?

.

---

speaking of daft; anybody like daft punk?

DP1

DP2

and the one that just didn't quite work

A little background on Danny...

He first tried to come up with a Constitutional argument against the seizure of illegal drugs.

Now, he is trying to figure out how to create drug "safe zones" within the US.

I would think it would just be easier to convince a doctor he has glacoma.

or move to Denmark or whatever country it is legal:D

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

that does not address my post which was in response to a very specific post by you. I did prove your post to be incorrect. Trying to twist it now will do no good. You lied.

You have been arguing the fed does not have the right to control interstate commerce. I posted some of the statements, from you, that make that arguement. You proved yourself wrong.

---

The words in question were Regulate and Prohibit. Why have you brought Control into the argument? I read somewhere that there is a legal maxim that states that if a different word is used, it is because there is a different meaning associated to it.

I have not been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states, to Regulate commerce among those states.

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Boy, are you daft?

You state, with one sentence, that no one is debating whether or not states can regulate and prohibit certain transactions within their borders and then say that you don't understand how anyone can prohibit anything.

The federal government was founded and designed for just this purpose. To regulate matters that manifested between and among the states.

I will wait while you dig out that dog eared copy of the Constitution that your Grammy gave you at your bar mitzvah.

If a state can legalize (and, conversely, make illegal) a substance, so can the fed when interstate transportation is made.

---

I think we are mis-communicating in our discussion. Some of the opposing viewpoint seem to be confusing the traditional police powers of a state, to the specifically delegated powers to the general government of the Union.

I only quibble that states have no constitutional authority to declare any forms of private property alienable or defeasible, contrary to the their own constitution.

From one perspective, why have a federal form of government, if the Founding Fathers felt that a one continental government was the most conducive to freedom and individual liberty?

I disagree with your position concerning that specific power, usurped by the federal government, to Prohibit commerce among the several states. That power was clearly repealed in accordance with the Constitutional process. There has been no Constitutional process re-Delegating that power to the general government of the Union.

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

And you are wrong.

You are spouting a non-sequitur.

The repeal of the prohibition amendment was simply that; it didn't change anything else in the constitution.

Next question?

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

You are spouting a non-sequitur.
?

---

are you sure it isn't simply a fallacy?:p

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

The words in question were Regulate and Prohibit. Why have you brought Control into the argument? I read somewhere that there is a legal maxim that states that if a different word is used, it is because there is a different meaning associated to it.

I have not been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states, to Regulate commerce among those states.

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

---

Yes, we know.

And you are still wrong. No matter what your nickel's worth of Constitutional study told you.

Let me try this another way.

An easier way to view the hierarchy of law is to go through the legal process.... something I am reasonably sure you are familiar with.

First, you go to municiple court. Then to the appeals court for the state. Then to the state supreme court. Then to the federal district court. Then to the federal appelate court. Finally, you go to the Supreme court.

After the supreme court, there are no more appeals... because they are the supreme law of the land.

There ya go.

Has anyone established that Dannyboy actually understands the meaning of the word, fallacy?

Was his mother frightened by a thesaurus?

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

And you are wrong.

You are spouting a non-sequitur.

The repeal of the prohibition amendment was simply that; it didn't change anything else in the constitution.

Next question?

---

The repeal of the specific power to Prohibit commerce among the several states, delegated by the several states, and the legal and political precedent established by that public act is what we are discussing.

Why was it felt that the states needed to Delegate the power to Prohibit commerce between the several states, if that power already existed, by enacting a prohibition amendment that specifically enumerated that delegated power to the general government of the Union?

What would Madison have thought of such "latitude of construction", if he was even willing to veto a public works bill that could have had "signal advantage" to the Union, if only our federal congress had that specifically enumerated power.

The power to Provide for the general Welfare of the United States is clearly an enumerated general power. The power to Prohibit commerce among the several states was repealed by the several states who no longer had a need to delegate that power to the general government of the Union.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Yes, we know.

And you are still wrong. No matter what your nickel's worth of Constitutional study told you.

---

You seem to be under the impression that legal precedent and political precedent mean nothing in a State that adheres to the principles of common law.

Whence has there been shown any clear and compelling reason to Prohibit commerce among the several states concerning drugs? The Drug War was supposed to have been won sometime around 1995. Drugs are still plentiful, and can be found in most any city in the US.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simply requiring that the general government of the Union, contain itself to its enumerated powers.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Yes, we know.

And you are still wrong. No matter what your nickel's worth of Constitutional study told you.

---

You are always welcome to your opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You seem to be under the impression that legal precedent and political precedent mean nothing in a State that adheres to the principles of common law.

---

I guess you DON'T mean the hundreds of cases tried daily buttressing our argument about the legality of the prohibition of illegal drugs.

If anyone is ignoring legal precedent, it is you.

Quote:

---

Whence has there been shown any clear and compelling reason to Prohibit commerce among the several states concerning drugs?

---

Whence? Who, outside of an obscure Shakespeare reference class at the learning annex, uses whence?

Anyway, I could refer you to the several thousand page FDA handbook, but you wouldn't go there.

Quote:

---

The Drug War was supposed to have been won sometime around 1995. Drugs are still plentiful, and can be found in most any city in the US.

---

And so the fight should stop? The fact that some people persist in committing illegal activity doesn't mean the law for it isn't valid.

People are still committing murder, rape and child molestation despite our best efforts to stop these crimes. That doesn't mean we should stop the prosecution... it just means that the punishments aren't harsh enough yet.

Quote:

---

We could be lowering our tax burden by simply requiring that the general government of the Union, contain itself to its enumerated powers.

---

Or, we could just start using your posts as an inexpensive alternative to compost and/or manure.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You are always welcome to your opinion.

---

Good.

Yours is wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

I guess you DON'T mean the hundreds of cases tried daily buttressing our argument about the legality of the prohibition of illegal drugs.

If anyone is ignoring legal precedent, it is you.

Whence? Who, outside of an obscure Shakespeare reference class at the learning annex, uses whence?

Anyway, I could refer you to the several thousand page FDA handbook, but you wouldn't go there.

And so the fight should stop? The fact that some people persist in committing illegal activity doesn't mean the law for it isn't valid.

People are still committing murder, rape and child molestation despite our best efforts to stop these crimes. That doesn't mean we should stop the prosecution... it just means that the punishments aren't harsh enough yet.

Or, we could just start using your posts as an inexpensive alternative to compost and/or manure.

---

No one is advocating that states should be deprived their traditional police power to ensure their domestic tranquility.

Slavery was just as wrong. Why are we still repeating the mistakes of the past?

You keep ignoring the repeal of the prohibition amendment. It is like saying slavery could still be legal if there is enough reeferless madness to manufacture sufficient precedent. IV,2 should have precluded any necessity for the Civil War amendments; and, even the womens' suffrage amendment.

That is the equivalent to saying a (drug) war is better than actually Providing for the general Welfare of the United States in accordance with the enumerated powers delegated to the general government of the Union.

In any event, it may eventually become a moot point if the states eventually decide to use the precedent being established by the US Supreme Court concerning nullification of powers of a duly constituted interstate authority.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

No one is advocating that states should be deprived their traditional police power to ensure their domestic tranquility.

Slavery was just as wrong. Why are we still repeating the mistakes of the past?

You keep ignoring the repeal of the prohibition amendment. It is like saying slavery could still be legal if there is enough reeferless madness to manufacture sufficient precedent. IV,2 should have precluded any necessity for the Civil War amendments; and, even the womens' suffrage amendment.

That is the equivalent to say a (drug) war is better than actually Providing for the general Welfare of the United States in accordance with the enumerated powers delegated to the general government of the Union.

---

I tell you what.

When there is an admendment to the constitution legalizing your drug of choice, then we will talk.

Until then, Pfft.

Dan, you can't smoke pot because it "drives white women to seek sexual relations with negros".

I smoked a couple times when I was younger, but I never really liked it that much. I just stick to my alcohol. :D

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Dan, you can't smoke pot because it "drives white women to seek sexual relations with negros".

I smoked a couple times when I was younger, but I never really liked it that much. I just stick to my alcohol. :D

---

Dan is a white woman?

Quote:

---

Quoting cissycicle

---

Dan is a white woman?

---

Uhh.. no, but thats why cannabis was made illegal.

Now calm down!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Uhh.. no, but thats why cannabis was made illegal.

Now calm down!

---

If I were any calmer, I'd be in a coma.

Nice to know. Did you go to BOR's, Souperdave's, SJ's, Gigirle's, and Dan's 4/20 party? I got an invite, but I declined... :D

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Dan, you can't smoke pot because it "drives white women to seek sexual relations with negros".

I smoked a couple times when I was younger, but I never really liked it that much. I just stick to my alcohol. :D

---

I drove some white women all over the country and never got to Sexual Relations.

Is that in Nevada?

Possible. Don't worry SJ, it's all gonan be ok. I'm sure you can get together with Dan. :p

If Daniel would just come right out and say, "I'd like to get stoned and laid," then I could understand that!!!

I sure hope I'm not like Daniel when I grow up! He's too damned serious!

That he is. He probably just needs a little "action". We're gonna try to fix him up with somebody. lol

If worse comes to worse, there's always sheep!:eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I smoked a couple times when I was younger, but I never really liked it that much. I just stick to my alcohol. :D

---

Me too...when I was younger....just a couple times.....a day! But that was on schooldays, weekends and summertime was a whole 'nother story.:p

Alcohol was for pukers!:wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Me too...when I was younger....just a couple times.....a day! But that was on schooldays, weekends and summertime was a whole 'nother story.:p

Alcohol was for pukers!:wallbang:

---

Ya know... I always wonder what prison Danny is in when he goes into one of these hiatuses....

Sheep, heck... he probably does the drugs just for the cavity searches.

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Me too...when I was younger....just a couple times.....a day! But that was on schooldays, weekends and summertime was a whole 'nother story.:p

Alcohol was for pukers!:wallbang:

---

I NEVER inhaled though. So you really can't say I ever smoked.... HA!

Sure Bill, we believe ya!

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Sure Bill, we believe ya!

---

I never had sex with that cigarette!:D

Calm down, Senior. I know how you old people are. Don't want you to have a heart attack or have your blood pressure go up. Oh yeah, did you ever get you that walking cane????