Eric Holder Threatens Kansas

Our federal Congress is only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever" in the federal districts.

 

You keep saying this, but you are absolutely wrong. The Feds can enforce federal law anywhere withing the U.S. and it's territories and that includes the States.

 

funny how the libs get their panties in a bunch when a state pushes it's 2nd amendment rights but are all a joy when it is about weed.

Not that it matters Harry Reed and Obama can't even pass a bill through the Democratically controlled Senate...seems all they can pass is gas these days. Looks like as far as any real policy goes Obumbles is about as impotent as a rodeo mule

 

Well the Feds are doing a lot of raiding of medical marijuana
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/26/local/la-me-medical-marijuana-20120926

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/2012/08...aries-order-66-other-mmj-businesses-to-close/

You seem to forget that to pass just about anything in the Senate you have to have 60 votes to even bring the legislation to the floor for discussion, much less an actual vote.

 

No it doesn't. You just make stuff up and pretend like it's fact.

Right, because you say so...

 

The Federal government does not have rights, it has powers, and only those powers specifically enumerated within the US Constitution. There is NO enumerated power to criminalize drugs or to prohibit commerce.

In your dreams, perhaps.

 

LOL

Eric Holder trying his hat at counter-insurgency operations. Now THAT is funny!

Keep dreaming!

 

This law is not counter to the Constitution and that's all that matters.

 

heh was referring to the libs here on teh weed thing but since you brought it up isn't it funny how the old choom gang bogarter is suddenly al righteous now he PoTUS. Article today about it as a matter of fact

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rior-barack-obama-keeps-bogarting-joints.html

stuff is too easy to grow so they cant figure a way to tax it or government would have legalized it years ago

back to the issue of the gun control , there are about 4 or 5 more Democrats in the Senate that may as well resign as vote for gun control, they know it and any one with 2 brain cells or was around in 94 knows it. Libs are just pissing in the wind on that issue. It ain't gonna happen because of the western and rural states. Gonna be real interesting for Manchin next time he runs because I just bet he will be challenged not only by a pro NRA Republican but also by a pro NRA Republican

 

It's not a "Federal law" if it violates the Bill of Rights.

 

Regardless of what your position on the second amendment might be, this is beyond (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. It makes the pro gun movement look dumber than it really is (I didn't know that was possible before now).

 

I think your aim is off. This is about rights and how States are standing up. Regardless of your position on guns, Federal law, as stated in the Constitution, deals with exchanges between the States, not within the State.

 

I found this hilarious, because any law which "violates the second amendment to the constitution" is inherently nulll, void, and unenforceable. However, to determine which laws are, you have to go over the supreme court. So, either Kansas is being mighty redundant, or they're expressing their desire to bypass the federal government and the supreme court. But the supreme court is who decides what the constitution means to begin with, so essentially they're trying to bypass the constitution.

...My brain hurts.

 

Can you cite where you found such a precedent? Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution claims otherwise.

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the power to Regulate forms of Commerce among the several States of the Union since the repeal of the amendment that only Delegated that social Power.

 

No, they are not trying to bypass the Constitution, they are trying to uphold it as they are sworn to do. Why would government officials be required to swear to uphold the Constitution if only SCOTUS could determine constitutionality? Does everyone who becomes a citizen, a sheriff, council member, now require an attorney with them when they swear in? No, we are not stupid. We can read and understand. It is plain and it is spelled out in the Constitution.

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

Kansas is only passing a State law as the Constitution allows. It is a matter of jurisdiction. Kansas has not relinquished its rights as a State. So, why would Holder threaten the good people of Kansas?

 

Does anyone else find the Cause of the Right to be disingenuous to the extent it requires a profit motive. Individual Persons of the People are being denied and disparaged in their natural right to acquire and possess forms of even controversial, private property; but, gun lovers only declaim and decry about guns while being unwilling to love their republic on a not for profit basis enough to muster.

 

Except SCOTUS has interpreted interstate commerce more loosely than that. Or do you think that the SCOTUS shouldn't have the final say on constitutionality?

 

It's best to read this sentence in context. It is not saying what you seem to think it is.

 

What does it mean to you when a state says something like that? Does it mean "we plan to reinforce the legitimacy of the court system with our own little version of the constitution" or does it mean "we plan to ignore any federal mandates that we personally believe to violate the second amendment, regardless of what the supreme court has to say"? I think Holder rightfully sees it as the latter, and that sort of thing is, obviously, disconcerting.

 

When California collects 100 million a year in taxes from pot sales, do you think SCOTUS has the final say?

 

clause18 of article 1

Congress can make laws which make it possible to do the other things listed. For example, it has the power to prevent counterfeiting of our currency, it has used that power to create the Secret Service and all kinds of laws which are needed to enforce it's power to prevent counterfeiting.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is completely out of whack with reality. You would be laughed out of court if you tried to base a case on your interpretation.

you should read the following
https://www.usa-corporate.com/setti...nderstanding-state-laws-versus-federal-laws/#

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblo...ctually-preempt-relaxed-state-marijuana-laws/

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html

 

Holder doesn't care about the Constitution, he cares about power. He is only interested in enforcing laws that support his political view.

 

Have you ever read this? Not many progressive like this Amendment to the Constitution.

Amendment X
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.

Why not tell us what part of the Constitution gives the feds the power to override this state law?

Explain why this amendment was the last of the "Bill of Rights" ..

 

hmm at 50 dollars an ounce tax that would mean that consumers are buying appx 125,000 pounds of weed a year in California. Wonder how much is grown at home or sold under the table