Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

[cyjeff]

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.

[blueeagle]

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?

[blueeagle]

The UN has no interstate authority.

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

[danielpalos]

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.

[blueeagle]

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.

[danielpalos]

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.

[danielpalos]

The UN has no interstate authority.

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

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

[cdwjava]

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

[danielpalos]

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.

[danielpalos]

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.