Unlawful Possession of Marijuana

And your argument, then, is that if any ONE person in the country thinks that an action or an object is good, then it is constitutionally allowed?

And your rights of life, liberty and property can ALL be removed via statute. NOT just if you violate the law, either

For instance, the death penalty can be used to deprive you of life. Your liberty can be removed if you commit a crime worthy of imprisonment. And, if you had actually READ the Supreme Court case I cited, you would see that property can be removed for the common good.

Liberty is restricted for the common good. The highway system is an example of constrained liberty. You drive this speed HERE but that speed THERE... and can only drive this direction from these lanes.

By the way, property is NOT a listed constitutional provision.

However, you can lose even those constitutional right specifically granted. Felons lose the right to bear arms, for instance. But no one can own a working tank.

Ultimately, the general good is in the hands of the legislatures that decide what is in the general good.

Again, if you want the laws to change, write your congressman/woman.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

And your argument, then, is that if any ONE person in the country thinks that an action or an object is good, then it is constitutionally allowed?

And your rights of life, liberty and property can ALL be removed via statute. NOT just if you violate the law, either

For instance, the death penalty can be used to deprive you of life. Your liberty can be removed if you commit a crime worthy of imprisonment. And, if you had actually READ the Supreme Court case I cited, you would see that property can be removed for the common good.

Liberty is restricted for the common good. The highway system is an example of constrained liberty. You drive this speed HERE but that speed THERE... and can only drive this direction from these lanes.

By the way, property is NOT a listed constitutional provision.

However, you can lose even those constitutional right specifically granted. Felons lose the right to bear arms, for instance. But no one can own a working tank.

---

The only way for the government to take away your rights, is for you to take away the rights of another individual. That is what justice is.

If you're arguing one person can't make law stating an action/object is good, how then can you argue one person can make a law stating an action/object is bad? Like I said earlier, for general Welfare to be applicable, the legislation must be good for everyone. Hypocrisy and contradiction in action. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Ultimately, the general good is in the hands of the legislatures that decide what is in the general good.

Again, if you want the laws to change, write your congressman/woman.

---

I shouldn't have to write my Congressman (It won't do anything anyway. People have been protesting for decades for marijuana legalization...that's worked wonders), as it would be unconstitutional for Congress to make ANY law on marijuana/drug use. It's an INDIVIDUAL right, not a GOVERNMENT right.

What do you not understand about individual rights? How hard of a concept is it to grasp that each and every one of us has the right of "life, liberty, and property," and that included in this (or at least apparent to anyone with any understanding of the constitution(s) and individual rights) is the right of self-ownership. Since I am the "supreme sovereign" of my body, I choose to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my home. Any law prohibiting the such is absolutely unconstitutional and unAmerican.

If all you are going to do is just repeat the same tired crap over and over, I recommend you take your case to court.

Come back and let us know either how you won and we are all wrong or how Danny was as a roommate.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

It's called General Welfare for a reason, otherwise the Founders would have just put "Welfare."

The prohibition of marijuana (or any other drug) doesn't help me nor the MILLIONS in prison, therefore it doesn't help the General Welfare.

-James Madison (Federalist 41)

-James Madison

- Thomas Jefferson

- Alexander Hamilton (emphasis added)

- Thomas Jefferson

- Thomas Jefferson

It's a shame the Constitution went from being a "clear-cut," "anyone can read it" document to being a brain teaser. How far we've come.

---

Thomas Jefferson was NOT a delegate to the Constitutional convention, so his quotes, if we are to be constitutionally literal, as you wish, mean nothing.

There were 55 delegates, you quote 2. Even if we are to assume they are factually correct that leaves the minds of 53 more, as there were 55 delegates. What/how did they interpret the general welfare clause?

By what authority did Congress have to appropriate money for the federal INTERSTATE system?? I suppose this was NOT a part of the general welfare since ALL citizens do not drive or use it?

By your reasoning it was UNconstitutional for the USSC to incorporate the Bill of Rights, or most of it, as applicable to the states, since the Founding Fathers did NOT mean it to be so!! Your argument is premised on the 4th AM, per your first post. So aren't you being somewhat redundant now??

You want the 4th AM to apply to you, and it does, yet the FF's did NOT mean it to, so what do you want??

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Thomas Jefferson was NOT a delegate to the Constitutional convention, so his quotes, if we are to be constitutionally literal, as you wish, mean nothing.

There were 55 delegates, you quote 2. Even if we are to assume they are factually correct that leaves the minds of 53 more, as there were 55 delegates. What/how did they interpret the general welfare clause?

By what authority did Congress have to appropriate money for the federal INTERSTATE system?? I suppose this was NOT a part of the general welfare since ALL citizens do not drive or use it?

By your reasoning it was UNconstitutional for the USSC to incorporate the Bill of Rights, or most of it, as applicable to the states, since the Founding Fathers did NOT mean it to be so!! Your argument is premised on the 4th AM, per your first post. So aren't you being somewhat redundant now??

You want the 4th AM to apply to you, and it does, yet the FF's did NOT mean it to, so what do you want??

---

He wants the silver bullet that allows him to smoke pot in his dorm room.

The same silver bullet that college students have been pursuing since 1960.

Explain exactly what happen to a lawyer if your lucky the case can be thrown out for some reason, a long shot.Find out about diversion or getting it dropped down..If all you had was a small amount it's just a violation unless they charged you for the vaporizer or something else.

"All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution."

It's not gonna work in court,go there and try .A judge or a da not going to listen to all your arguments,etc it could have the opposite effect. Let us know the results. Am not trying to be a dick,just the way it is. Your lawyer is your best weapon.

Explain exactly what happen to a lawyer, if your lucky the case can be thrown out for some reason, a long shot.Find out about diversion or getting it dropped down..If all you had was a small amount it's just a violation unless they charged you for the vaporizer or something else.

"All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution."

It's not gonna work in court,go there and try .A judge or a da not going to listen to all your arguments,etc it could have the opposite effect. Let us know the results. Am not trying to be a dick,just the way it is. Your lawyer is your best weapon.