Divided States Of America
- Thread starter gator1776
- Start date
Nice shift...the debate wasn't about weed. It was about state's rights vs the feds.
Hippy meaning liberal...not hippy meaning puff, puff, pass.
But legalization has been the primary effort of the more liberal states to enforce state's rights, so I was within bounds to read your post that way.
And btw, if Alabama and it's conservative base chose to legalize weed then yes, liberal states like California and liberal politicians would absolutely support our states rights.
OTOH, if Alabama wanted to prevent something that the Fed had approved...libs say F your states rights.
OTOH, if Alabama wanted to prevent something that the Fed had approved...libs say F your states rights.
But the debate still wasn't about weed. It was about states rights so South Dakota's stance on weed is an absolute red-herring.
its what he does and why his character is awful and credibility is hot garbage
The debate was about state's rights, and after I stated an obvious fact, that Republicans are all for states rights in Republican-run states, but not so much the others, you tried to turn it around on me. Now, despite the fact that Republicans have been beating the state's rights drum almost non-stop for decades, you tried to turn the argument around on me saying that the Democrat-run states are the same only in the opposite direction, I tried to figure out where, exactly, the liberal states had used states rights to their advantage. The only one is legalization, but as I pointed out, that's a bipartisan effort, so there really isn't any time where the Dems have embraced states rights for their agendas.
Therefore, your counter argument is invalid.
That is one hell of a spin. Surely you are dizzy now???
You say Republicans have beat the drum for states rights. True. At the same time, Dems have said F your states rights....until they have a desire to trumpet states rights...like weed, immigration, at one point gay marriage...off the top of my head.
BTW, you can add to fed law without issue. For example, you can add protections to civil rights law at the state level and the fed is cool with it. But you cannot detract from fed law...like weed or immigration for example. It's the minimum standard.
Immigration no. I do not believe states are passing less restrictive immigration laws. Selective enforcement is another issue. I won't discuss what some of the cities are doing, which isn't a state's rights issue anyway.
Gay marriage, I forgot that one. However, if I recall, the states had their own laws until the Feds passed a law that superseded the states, and the states abided by it (even the liberal ones, so there they weren't trumpeting state's rights), until SCOTUS struck it down. So pretty much just Mary Jane as a State's Rights issue.
And you are right about the minimum standard, but you are also wrong. As a general rule, yes, but there are certain areas where the feds cannot, by the constitution, overrule the states. Does marijuana fall into one of those categories? I don't know, I'm not a constitutional attorney. All I know is that states across the political spectrum seem fully capable of passing legalization laws, and nobody is going to SCOTUS to have them struck down.
I shouldn't have said immigration so broadly. I meant immigration as it relates to rights afforded to illegal immigrants within different states...not the actual immigration itself. My bad, poorly worded.
Weed is against Fed law. States have passed laws legalizing weed.
Laws affording gay marriage, however, cannot be superceded by state law. Ftr i don't have an issue with gay marriage. It's not something that I believe the feds or the state should attempt to legislate. I'm not so much pro gay marriage as I am anti federal or state overreach.
Interesting that the feds have not bent AT ALL regarding interstate commerce (ie banking) re: weed though.
I don't believe that this is true btw. I'm not a constitutional lawyer either but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
You are really going with that? Dems have never cared about moving power back to the states. The legalization of drugs has and will always be about taxes. Democrats will always whore any idea out to raise tax revenue so they can start their next assault on our rights or to fund another policy that will move us closer to bankruptcy.
You’re a lawyer, how did you not see this bud?
Obama was no more divisive than the average president. You cannot say the same for Trump. Yes, the MSM was friendlier toward Obama, but that was mostly due to Trump’s divisive and belligerent personality.
Actually, I'm a CPA, doing my best with the law issues.
I'm surprised you are not on board with taxing marijuana. Republicans, who dislike taxes generally, have always seemed to make an exception for sin taxes.
That’s because you willy nilly believe I’m Republican. Most of my views are libertarian. To be honest, I could careless about legalizing or taxing marijuana. The whole point of the post was to poke a hole in your logic.
Agree on the gay marriage issue, but in Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriages were legal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. So all states have to grant them, which means the liberal states have no problem but the conservative states are hating life. Do you recall the story of the clerk of the court in some county in Kentucky who refused to sign same sex marriage certificates and became an object of national derision? I had to look it up but her name was Kim Davis. Somebody had set up a fake twitter account for her and it was comedy gold.
As to weed, I think you are right, it's based on commerce. The feds have claimed jurisdiction over interstate commerce, but have little authority over intra-state commerce, so the states are able to pass laws legalizing marijuana and the feds can't do anything about it. And frankly, I don't think the feds can change the law, because allowing interstate commerce would de facto make it legal in all states, and that would usurp states rights for those who have not done so. I'm not sure about my interpretation, but it seems logical. The 10th amendment does not specifically detail any areas reserved to states, but years of case law have mapped it out a bit.
As to immigration, my only question is whether the states have actually passed laws that run counter to the federal government, or just decided to not enforce some of the federal laws. While I acknowledge this could be considered a ticky-tack point, illegal state laws could not stand a court challenge while selective enforcement of existing laws is a longstanding tradition in government. Not saying that's a good thing, mind you, just that it's a real thing.
If you vote Republican, you are a Republican in the only way that matters. If you vote Libertarian, then you may as well not vote at all.
God knows I hate the two party system, I'd much rather have multiple parties and coalition governments like most other democracies have, I would MUCH rather have the ability to choose a party that more closely aligns with my views, but we are too far down the road to change things now.
From 2009: “During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?”
You sound incredibly naive, ReRe.
Fair enough, I’d agree with your Republican statement
So you want a parliamentary system where each party has maybe 5 degrees of separation?
I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system for the House. Parties would make a list and win a percentage of the seats and fill from that list in order. I wonder who the leader of the dems would be under that scenario? Would AOC and Bern run under Dems socialist? Who would head up a green ticket? Libertarians? I think it fractures the left much more than the right. I also would repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate to the states. States need a veto over stupid legislation and out of control spending.
Gridlock which is often decried by the left was the default that the founders wanted.
Parliamentary shenanigans and a Senate beholding to their state reps would go a long way to slowing down big gubmint and maybe reversing some of the crap it has its grubby hands involved in these days.
Imagine building a coalition in the house and fighting and scratching to get a unified bill out only to have the Senate quickly say NO. Weeks worth of fighting and shot down in one day over in the Senate. Glorious I tell you, glorious!
Race relations plummeted under Obama. That wasn't happenstance ReRe.
Actually they absolutely could. It is a violation of federal law. They are choosing not to act.
Just like any other federal law, they can assume jurisdiction anytime they see fit. It can be challenged...before a federal court.
I'm not so sure...maybe they are hating it. I know some rural counties just stopped issuing marriage licenses completely meaning they don't have to issue them for gay marriage.
The feds could legalize it federally and still leave it up to individual states. It's a schedule 1 substance on the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Remove it from there and states could make their own calls...which are already on state books where it's illegal.
Just for reference, the reason the feds won't do this is because they are obviously still very interested in breaking up large illegal distributors and smuggling operations. Federal legalization would make that task MUCH more difficult.
Personally I'm not for decriminalization of weed. But I would absolutely support changing small quantity arrests into citations.
Small quantities with a number of baggies or other distribution tools...arrest.
Another divisive cause du jour from the leftards has awakened someone. Lets hope trump got enough judges in place to make a difference in shutting down this nonsense:
“It divides Americans by race and traffics in the pernicious concepts of race essentialism, racial stereotyping, and race-based segregation—all under a false pursuit of ‘social justice.”
legalinsurrection.com
“It divides Americans by race and traffics in the pernicious concepts of race essentialism, racial stereotyping, and race-based segregation—all under a false pursuit of ‘social justice.”
Legal Network Forming to Stop Critical Race Theory Training Across the Country
'It divides Americans by race and traffics in the pernicious concepts of race essentialism, racial stereotyping, and race-based segregation—all under a false pursuit of 'social justice.'
legalinsurrection.com
Secession TX 
Bill was filed in the TX House today.
Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) History for HB 1359
Bill was filed in the TX House today.
Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) History for HB 1359
Herman: Texas secession bill filed in House
Fredericksburg lawmaker files Texas secession measure
www.statesman.com
Last edited:
Secession TX
Bill was filed in the TX House today.
Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) History for HB 1359
Herman: Texas secession bill filed in House
Fredericksburg lawmaker files Texas secession measurewww.statesman.com
I might be moving to Texas then
You've got to be kidding. The shit show is about to start............Are you ready to rumble???https://media1.tenor.com/images/4629613df78479ccccbfa2b5c7457c12/tenor.gif?itemid=10622341
Similar threads
