The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Can the Federal Government Legalize Marijuana II
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:43 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You guys gave answers on this that were all over the place, and were almost completely devoid of any legal 'argument.' People said 'the federal government can legalize it under the commerce clause' without giving any analysis as to HOW. What are the factors? What would such a statute have to say, or what would have to support it? Which SCOTUS justices, based on their voting record, would find such a law unconstitutional (assuming it even got that far.)
Some people also said 'the federal government has made X 'legal' therefore it can make anything else, including marijuana, legal.' This is false - clearly.
I will now post a new message in this thread giving my analysis. |
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:59 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant First - what does it mean for something to be LEGAL?
Things are generally not made 'legal' because a statute proclaims them legal. Is it legal to eat bread from my local bakery? Where is the statute that says it is legal?
Here is a decision tree for determining if something is legal or illegal. The variables are - what the state vs. federal govt says about it, and whether it is silent on the matter or says it is illegal. There are other factors, which will be addressed in my next post in this thread. But in general it is:
SG illegal, FG illegal = illegal (unless BOTH SG AND FG are barred from making the activity illegal under the constitution - ie due process, etc.)
SG illegal, FG silent = illegal UNLESS state government does not have power to legislate in that regard (ie dormant commerce clause etc), in which case = legal
Or SG illegal FG affirmatively nullified SG law making it illegal, which is really the same as the exception to the one above. IE SG says illegal but FG says 'no state shall give effect to any law criminalizing X' - that would be a case where SG has no power to legislate in that regard
SG silent, FG illegal = illegal UNLESS FG does not have power to legislate in that regard (ie 10th amendment, defective commerce clause, etc)
SG silent, FG silent = legal
Therefore, the ONLY way something is legal is if both SG and FG are on board and choose not to make it illegal, OR SG says illegal but does not have the power to make it illegal.
Also - regulate does NOT mean legalize - assuming the federal government can regulate marijuana (and I have no doubt that it can), that does NOT mean that such regulation 'legalizes' it. It regulates alcohol, but that doesn't make alcohol legal, and every state can choose to make it illegal.
|
 |
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:07 PM Author: motley puppy though i admit I should throw bricks for how much time I wasted on your thread, you are really an ass for spending this much time on this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759249) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:15 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Again, if the federal government repeals all of its laws making marijuana illegal, it is STILL illegal unless every state repeals all of its laws as well (and not only would this not happen (even alcohol isn't legal everywhere), it isn't responsive to my question which was whether the FEDERAL GOVT can make it legal - not the federal and state govts working together, but the FED GOVT.
In order to make marijuana 'legal', the federal government would then have to be able to nullify all state laws that make it illegal. OR, (and this isn't exactly a seperate thing) the SCOTUS would have to hold that the states do not have the power to make it illegal.
In making your arguments as to how the federal government can make it 'legal', please address these concerns - IE exactly how would the federal government be able to nullify state laws.
Some things to keep in mind
Guns - states can't make guns illegal because of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
Abortion - the SCOTUS said that there was a fundamental right to abortion under the due process clause - a very dubious argument that has drawn nothing but fire for the last 35 years. At least with abortion, making it illegal did place a huge burden on one class of people (women) that was not placed on another (men.) Also there is an arguable natioanl interest in making abortion legal (ie see Levitt's book.) Also there is a worldwide movement towards recognizing a right to abortion.
The same cannot be said regarding marijuana. Be sure to keep this in mind in your answer.
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:19 PM Author: motley puppy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759316) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Yes, and? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759405) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:30 PM Author: motley puppy See below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759420) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:21 PM Author: azure fragrant preventive strike my thoughts, having not weighed in on the old thread:
the basis of the drug laws comes from 2 powers: 1 - general police powers (protect health, safety, morals, welfare) and 2 - administrative (FDA) classification.
if the FDA were to remove cannabis and cannabis derivatives entirely from its schedule system, and declare it was not going to be regulated as a drug, then it would have the same classification as something like, say lettuce (a naturally occuring plant with no harm and 'no' medical benefit).
could the gov't sustain a law prohibiting lettuce based on the general police powers? probably not. so the fed gov would repeal the fed drug laws relating to marijuana, and the state laws be unconstitutional - if there's no rational basis for regulating under the police powers, the law fails. by virtue of the administrative declassification, there would be no basis to keep marijuana illegal. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant This is incorrect. You are wrong to assume that if something is removed from the FDA classification system, that it becomes unconstitutional to make it illegal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759396) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:29 PM Author: motley puppy Like i've said three times, Dormant Commerce Clause.
If the Congress declares that Pot is part of interestate commerece, and creates a pot distribution commission, that COULD mean that states could not legislate on this. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:35 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Why does the dormant commerce clause not prevent the states from making alcohol illegal then?
Give the ANALYSIS please - how does the argument go?
What you are describing is not the dormant commerce clause anyway - it is the commerce clause.
If the federal government says it is part of interstate commerce, and creates a distribution commission, how does that make it LEGAL?
I should also note - it already does regulate distribution - research labs can grow it and buy it from supply companies for research purposes. You can even buy cocaine from a catalog supplier (see www.aldrich.com.)
That does not make it legal. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: motley puppy You are just scrambling now. Read the wiki site.
"In Granholm v. Heald, the US Supreme Court held that certain restrictions on interstate liquor shipments violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, notwithstanding section two of the Twenty-first Amendment."
With regards to your alcohol argument, perhaps intrastate alcohol use isn't interstate commerce. In Raich, the S.Ct. said intrastate pot use IS interstate commerce. Stupid decision? Probably. But its the law.
no, its the dormant commerce clause. You are asking - can a state make pot distribution illegal even if congress says its legal. The answer, no, because if Congress says its interestate commerce and provides a right to access, then the state will not be alowed to interefer with that right.
Your "legal" "illegal" vocabulary game is trite. If the federal government created a distribution commision that provided pot on a wide basis, maybe creating a pot tax similiar to a cigarette tax, that would effectively make it legal.
So, bottom line, the federal government could create a system where anyone could get pot if they wanted to, at least under current law.
edit: poster at bottom says i'm wrong about the DCC, and he might be right, but even still congress could just do it under pre-emption. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:47 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant "Your "legal" "illegal" vocabulary game is trite. If the federal government created a distribution commision that provided pot on a wide basis, maybe creating a pot tax similiar to a cigarette tax, that would effectively make it legal."
Wrong. Such a system exists for alcohol, and that does make alcohol legal.
You are citing granholm generally when it is very specific - CERTAIN restrictions violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. That does not mean that state imposed restrictions are GENERALLY void under the Dorm. commerce clause - if there is an AFFIRMATIVE federal law on point, the state law would be void via the supremacy clause. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:49 PM Author: motley puppy did you just ignore my point about alcohol / pot and intrastate / interestate commerce? I mean, I know it basically makes your argument worthless, but I thought you would at least address it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759553) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:52 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant The federal government DOES regulate alcohol via interstate commerce. Everyone knows (or should know) that.
The case you cited adresses VERY SPECIFIC forms of regulation that are not directly addressed by federal alcohol regulation - that is the reason for the dormant commerce clause language.
PS you ARE familiar with the ATF, right? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:00 PM Author: motley puppy Yes, but the federal government has never said that alcohol should be freely accessible to everyone, and cannot be made illegal by a state. If it did, the S.Ct. would likely say that violates its interstate commerce power.
But, if the government, or even the ATF, said that pot should be freely accessible, like cigarettes, and the Supreme Court said that this was within their interstate commerce power (which it might under Raich), the states would not be able to legislate against this right under the dormant commerce clause, because the ATF would have specifically made a statement on it.
The fact that it will never happen, and the federal government would never want to legislate to that extent, has nothing to do with whether they could do so. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:07 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant WHY would it do that for marijuana? WHY would it do that to make boiling your neighbor alive in battery acid legal?
PROVIDE ARGUMENT PLEASE. I've asked 100 times now. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: motley puppy YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT! I have said a million times in response that NO ONE WOULD ARGUE that it is GOING TO HAPPEN AS A POLICY MATTER! All you asked was, COULD the federal government do it? If the Pot happy party got really popular and filled both houses and the presidency, THEY COULD DO IT.
See my post below for more on this. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:13 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You don't get it.
It can only happen IF there is some argument! If there is NO argument, it CAN not happen!
That's like saying that I can sue B for securities fraud if he just spits on me.
I CAN'T sue him for securities fraud if all he did was spit on me. Don't you GET IT? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:25 PM Author: motley puppy Pot is good because it helps the economy. Congress says - we should make sure big pot companies can sell there pot everywhere so we can get lots of tax money, so we are going to say its interestate commerce and pre-empt all state laws on the matter.
That make you feel better? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:28 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant No because there is no such argument.
That's like saying I can sue B for securites fraud after he spits on me, because the spit was like a security, and he was selling to me because he wanted this law suit as consideration, and it was fraudulent because he also said he was going to punch me in the face and he never punched me, and he never intended to punch me. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:32 PM Author: motley puppy You need to be more specific than that.
Raich said pot was interestate commerce. my example wasn't as outer-space as yours. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:37 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I've always agreed that pot is interstate commerce. In fact it IS sold, legally, through interstate commerce all the time, and it is regulated by the federal government.
That certainly doesn't make it legal.
I'll state it more clearly -
The commerce clause is used whereby the federal government regulates interstate commerce WHERE SUCH COMMERCE EXISTS. If a state chooses to make it illegal, there is no commerce. The fed government is regulating it, it just isn't taking place because the states say it is illegal.
Name one case where the federal government has used the commerce clause to supercede some state law making something illegal. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:44 PM Author: motley puppy see the discussion below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760059) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:44 PM Author: Slippery Faggotry French Chef "Name one case where the federal government has used the commerce clause to supercede some state law making something illegal."
US v. Darby, 312 US 100 - child labor illegal, preempting state laws on the matter |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:45 PM Author: motley puppy i think he wants something like, Child labor good! can't make it illegal! A case was cited below with basically pwns him though... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760071) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:58 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Which case? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760173) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:00 PM Author: motley puppy http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&mc=98&forum_id=2#5759985 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760187) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:57 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Explain how that made child labor LEGAL? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760160) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:50 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant And as I pointed out elsewhere, the federal government DOES regulate distribution of marijunana and cocaine - to research labs.
It also regulates the transport of plutonium. Does that make it legal? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:31 PM Author: azure fragrant preventive strike but the state laws still have to pass a rational basis scrutiny.
can you honestly say that a state could make lettuce illegal, and that such a law would not be unconstitutional? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:36 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant No, I'm pretty sure it couldn't say that lettuce is illegal because it is protected under the due process clause or something else.
Marijuana (illegal in all 50 states) is not lettuce (legal in every state.) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:38 PM Author: azure fragrant preventive strike wow. that made absolutely no sense.
you clearly know NOTHING about con law. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant For all I know a state COULD declare lettuce illegal, and then just have to deal with the wrath of the voters.
In some places, such things as pit bulls, dancing, rolling papers, and tatoo parlors are illegal, maybe lettuce could be too.
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:43 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I'm just saying that there is a colorable 5th amendment problem with any state law trying to make something illegal that has always BEEN legal and that is not considered harmful in any way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759510) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:54 PM Author: indigo state prole i wouldn't go that far, but yes, he certainly knows a lot less than he claims. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759593) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:35 PM Author: indigo state prole well, the federal government could declare marijuana use a "fundamental right," thereby invalidating all state laws to the contrary. far-fetched example but it works. this is the simple and credited solution to this thread and the monstrous 300+ post nightmare you started the other day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759465) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:39 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Ok, so explain the basis of this 'fundamental right.' Don't just say it COULD, explain WHY or HOW or what basis it would have for saying that. How many justices would agree that there is a fundamental right in the constitution to use marijuana? Which ones?
You can also say the SCOTUS could find a fundamental right to boil your neighbor alive in sulfuric acid. Which justices would agree?
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:43 PM Author: motley puppy Dood, no one is saying it is going to happen. the bottom line is that it could happen, on a number of different grounds.
I agree the fundamental right argument is dull, because it will never happen, but it COULD happen. No one is going to argue that it will happen. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:49 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant It CAN'T happen. There must be an argument. If there is no argument, it can't happen.
Under your logic the SCOTUS could recognize a fundamental right for citizens to own nuclear weapons. It is a nonsense statement. I hope you don't waste your time spinning your wheels in fantasy land when you're a lawyer. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:52 PM Author: motley puppy Are you, like, on crack, or something? If you are saying -it won't happen because the policy behind it isn't very good - than yea, you are right.
Like, I don't think there will ever be a real federal right to abortion again like Roe back in the day before Casey, because there isn't any argument for it anymore. Does that mean the Federal Government can't do it?
This is like a bill clinton vocabulary game... this is like saying "that guy just CAN'T drive 90 on a snowy highway" - i mean, yea it would be a stupid idea and there is no reason for it, but he technically could do it.
This is a stupid hypothetical that requires stupid answers and assumptions. you are the one who created this venture in fantasy land. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: indigo state prole IP seems to think that he can tell the future. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759587) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:58 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You openly admit that you know nothing about the law. Your opinion means nothing.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=397405&mc=47&forum_id=2#5554377 |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:01 PM Author: indigo state prole i hope you understand what you just quoted. re-read it; eat it; do whatever you can to understand it. there's a crucial part of it you're ignoring (or misunderstanding, as it were) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759645) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:09 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant So you still stand by that post? Was what you said there true? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759726) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:11 PM Author: motley puppy He also said it was a community account, moron. This could be one of many different posters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759735) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:14 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You really believe that Strom is a fellow at an 'elite media organization' and he shares the account with people who know about the law?
You really believe that? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:19 PM Author: motley puppy so, either the it was flame, so why did you cite it? Or it isn't, which means there is a community access? Why would either prove your point that he doesn't understand law? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759819) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:45 PM Author: Appetizing half-breed hunting ground Stop replying to him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760519) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:51 PM Author: indigo state prole to be fair, your position is almost identical to ours in that you're only saying that the government "COULD NOT" legalize it, not that they can't. sure, you may think you know, but you don't. this fundamental rights nonsense has taken crazy, unpredictable turns in past, so it's a bit ridiculous to think that IPGunner knows what the court will do with it in the future. IPGunner doesn't have that much prestige.
that said, a fundamental right in marijuana use certainly is far fetched. seriously far fetched. but i imagine a bunch of liberal faggot justices might ground it in some notion of privacy and personal autonomy, so long as smoking doobies doesn't hurt children or users. the case could use some sort of blended rationale, combining commerce clause stuff with some fundamental rights nonsense, and maybe some EP, for good measure. there have been cases (griswold, even cleburne) where the court claimed that it was doing one thing, but the result belied that claim. it's certainly theoretically possible; and you don't know if it isn't. stop acting like you know everything. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:55 PM Author: motley puppy yea, if the supreme court is full of legal realists or something, anything could happen... i admitted this on the other thread... but I do think the fundamental right arguement is dull. I.e. you should spend no more than 2 sentances on it in a con law exam, because likely the Prof isn't looking for that to be a major part of your answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759599) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:05 PM Author: indigo state prole if a prof spends 1/3rd of the semester covering fundamental rights (like most profs do), and you still think it appropriate to address it with one or two sentences, then i wish you the best of luck on the exam and in life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759680) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:13 PM Author: motley puppy Do profs SRSLY spend 1/3 of the semester covering fundamental rights? Mine discussed it with regards to abortion, Lochner, and said "its basically dead letter law" and moved on. I hear most profs did the same. And I did fine in both the exam and in life.
Anyway, saying "the supreme court coudl find a fundamental right to X" is something you could say on most con law exam questions. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:18 PM Author: indigo state prole if profs spend a substantial amount of time on it, you had better address it if it comes up on the exam. if it doesn't come up on the exam, or if the prof doesn't spend too much time on it, then you shouldn't address it. in any case, it's not completely "dead" like you keep repeating. courts might be scared or reluctant to touch it, but that doesn't mean it's dead. until it is overruled, it remains alive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759815) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:20 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Assuming there are other questions or other parts to the question, you should address it where it belongs. You should NOT throw issues out at random where they are irrelevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759830) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:21 PM Author: indigo state prole who said anything to the contrary? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759836) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: motley puppy Casey went a long way to over-rulling the fundemental rights doctrine. Do you know what "dead-letter" means? It means dead, even though not explicitly over-ruled. I think that is a fair characterization of the fundamental rights doctrine at this point in history. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759889) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:28 PM Author: indigo state prole casey overruled roe's rigid trimester framework. it didn't overrule fundamental rights doctrine. get over it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759911) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:35 PM Author: motley puppy dead-letter, buddy, dead-letter. You likely won't see another fundemental right recognized in your lifetime, and it is very popular that Roe could get overturned within the next 5 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759966) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:46 PM Author: indigo state prole haha, no. anyway, stop saying that "[x] case overruled fundamental rights" when it CLEARLY didn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760075) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:51 PM Author: motley puppy I was trying to say that it vastly undermined Roe, which I think is true, and basically only upheld it on stare decisis. Hardly a strengthening of the fundamental rights doctrine.
It ain't coming back, buddy, no matter how hard you want it to. Especially if the conservatives get a few more judicial appointments on the court, it'll be dead for at least another 50 years. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:54 PM Author: indigo state prole what makes you think i want it to come back? the way i see it, the fags are going to use the "fundamental right to marriage" for their argument that fag marriage should be legal. fundamental rights should be scrapped for that reason alone. honestly, unless it helps my race, i don't give a shit about fundamental rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760138) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:58 PM Author: motley puppy i didn't really think that YOU specifically wanted it to come back... I was just arguing the point.
I just think fundamental rights are bullshit, and that roe / lochner should be enough evidence of that. But the liberal academics seem to love them, which is probably why a lot of con law profs spend a lot more time on them that mine did. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:04 PM Author: indigo state prole to be fair, not all fundamental rights cases are complete crap. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760210) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:04 PM Author: motley puppy which ones do you like? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760213) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:10 PM Author: indigo state prole loving is ok. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760270) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:12 PM Author: motley puppy We already talked about this. 14th amendment case of race discrimination, polygamy, incest and homomarriage are not protected, it isn't a real fundamental right. The could have decided that case without refereing to fundamental rights at all.
Any others? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:20 PM Author: indigo state prole haha, i forgot that you think loving didn't say that marriage was a fundamental right. you're wrong, but no one cares. fuck fundamental rights, fuck gays, and fuck white liberals. these three themes encapsulate what i think about con law. and if you're white or gay, then fuck you too dood (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760358) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:23 PM Author: motley puppy You are probably right that a marriage between a man and a woman only once is some fundamental right. If a state were to ban that, they would probably lose in court. but it is such a stupid, useless fundamental right. That case could have been decided without fundamental rights.
I don't see any reason why we need a fundamental rights doctrine. In fact, I think its an affront to the constitution. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:31 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life As i explained on the old thread, LOVING is certainly cited as standing for a "fundamental right to marriage" (at least in GRISWOLD, which is very sound law, and in ROE). Hell, even O'Connor has cited it for that aspect. Scalia has tried to argue that LOVING can and should result strictly on equal protection grounds. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760429) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:36 PM Author: motley puppy Fine. But it doesn't really mean much, because states can make certain marriages illegal and place burdens on marriage, like taxes or drug tests. And I think it is totally unneccessary because the 14th could be used to decide loving. I don't think you need a fundamental rights doctrine to protect marriage in the way the judicial system protects it today. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760464) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:51 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life I'm torn on 'fundamental rights', but I agree that the 14th amendment, substantive due process, is not the way to recognize them. I do believe that the 9th amendment means something, but it has rarely been used to protect rights ever. (One justice used it in GRISWOLD, but everything after GRISWOLD focused on the 14th amendment). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760557) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:53 PM Author: indigo state prole the 9th amendment is a faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760585) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:55 PM Author: motley puppy I agree with this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760594) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:15 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Idiot - you would address it in some OTHER part of the question, or some different question.
Do you go around addressing irrelevant issues like this all the time? LOL - idiot. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:37 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life ... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760469) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:55 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant The 'fundamental rights' doctrine is LOSING steam, not gaining it.
And when has it ever been used to 'legalize' something that is illegal nearly everywhere, in almost every developed country? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:58 PM Author: indigo state prole um, what other countries do doesn't bind us. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759620) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant That's not what the SCOTUS says. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759630) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:01 PM Author: indigo state prole what? laws in other countries bind the US? did you just pwn yourself?
provide link ASAP. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:06 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant LOL dood there is a full legislative history on the 'law of nations.' It goes back to the 18th century. Not to mention english common law.
Never heard of Roper v. Simmons either, I suppose.
Here's your link. Happy reading.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:08 PM Author: motley puppy the "evolving standards of decency" in the 8th amendment jurisprudence is entirelly irrellevant to your argument. The S.Ct. will never look to french law to decide the scope of U.S. Federalism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759711) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:17 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I'm giving examples of foreign law influencing US law. I'm not saying that the 8th amendment SPECIFIALLY is what is at issue here.
You're not much of a thinker, clearly.
A semester or two of law school would help you to stop jumping to illogical conclusions. Not that you could ever get in. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:00 PM Author: motley puppy I am saying that that case is totally irrellevant, fucktard. Not even Souter or Breyer is going to reference foreign law when deciding a federalism case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760184) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:12 PM Author: indigo state prole haha, i knew you were going to cite that case. it does not support your claim, dude. cite to any langauge in that case that says "the US is bound by the laws of other countries." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759743) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:18 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant That particular case does not say that we are bound, only that we are influenced by.
There are other cases that say that we ARE bound, though.
IE charming betsy, and a whole body of precedent on the law of nations. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:22 PM Author: motley puppy "There are other cases that say that we ARE bound, though."
What cases are these? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: indigo state prole haha, i seriously don't know why i'm even talking to IPGunner. he always says such ridiculous crap, and i always get a headache. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759888) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:26 PM Author: indigo state prole haha, you're confusing global or international jurisdiction laws such as treaties and other international law with country specific laws ("laws of other countries"). do you see or understand the difference? we may be bound by the former, but that does not mean we are bound by the latter. they are two completely different bodies of law, and i'm still waiting for a cite that says "the US is bound by the laws of other countries." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759876) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:30 PM Author: motley puppy its incredible, really, that he thinks a treaty and what other countries do with regards to pot are at any way commensurable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759921) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:36 PM Author: Fishy mood Just in case of an edit...
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:01 PM Author: Strom Thurmond
what? laws in other countries bind the US? did you just pwn yourself?
provide link ASAP.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759651)
----------------------------------------------------------- Date: May 10th, 2006 6:06 PM Author: IPGunner
LOL dood there is a full legislative history on the 'law of nations.' It goes back to the 18th century. Not to mention english common law.
Never heard of Roper v. Simmons either, I suppose.
Here's your link. Happy reading.
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:55 PM Author: indigo state prole PWN3D11111 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760150) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:06 PM Author: motley puppy I think he's refering to Simmons and Atkins referencing foerign law, but the 8th amendment jurisdprudence is totally irrelevant here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759696) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:14 PM Author: indigo state prole even if it referenced foreign law, it didn't stand for the proposition that "the US is bound by the laws of other countries." saying that "emerging practices in other countries should guide us" is completely different from saying "the laws in other countries bind us." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759770) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:18 PM Author: motley puppy certainly not, and the reference to foreign law only applies in 8th amendment cases because of the "evolving standards of decency" theory, which according to libs includes the world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759811) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:02 PM Author: motley puppy What is your question? It clearly isn't, COULD under the constitution in some reading of current law, the federal government, if it wanted to, make pot legal? You seem to be asking, instead, is there any chance someone could make this happen in todays political atmosphere. Answer, no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759657) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:08 PM Author: indigo state prole yep. consider this:
QUESTION: "could an average man win a fight with Hulk Hogan?"
ANSWER: "of course not, because an average man would know better than to fight with Hulk Hogan. an average man can't win a fight with the hulkster because an average man wouldn't want to fight with hulk hogan." |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:12 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Congress issues findings that the production and distribution of marijuana is a component of interstate commerce. Marijuana then comes under the purview of the Commerce Cl., allowing Congress to pass a law preempting all state laws to the contrary. Combining the Commerce Cl. with the Necessary and Proper Cl. would let Congress preempt more or less any commercial regulation.
The dormant commerce clause wouldn't come up because a state law banning marijuana (1) wouldn't be facially discriminatory against out of state actors and (2) wouldn't burden such actors out of proportion to the in state interest. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:21 PM Author: motley puppy that might be right... i digress to someone who knows more than I do.
I am remembering the milk case, and how a non-milk producing state can still tax milk because its not fascially discriminatory.
I still think i can make a very wild dormant commerce clause arguement, but it probably isn't neccessary because they could do it through pre-emption. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:24 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Regulating does not mean that it can prevent states from passing their own laws declaring it illegal.
The federal government DOES regulate marijuana and cocaine and herion and many others through interstate commerce. You can buy them from catalogs for use in research labs. How does that make them 'legal'?
What else has ever been made 'legal' via the commerce clause? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:28 PM Author: motley puppy It doesn't make it legal. If they were to expan those regulations to say that anyone, not just research labs, could buy it, the states couldn't interefere with that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759904) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:29 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant And exactly how could the commerce clause be used to do that?
Has it EVER been used to do that? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:37 PM Author: motley puppy Raich - pot is interestate commerce.
Law allowing for use of pot with a tax would, therefore, be interestate commerce.
What more do you want? You've already shown that the gov't can allow Research labs to purchase it. Why couldn't it just expand that ability for everyone? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:01 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Of course that would be interstate commerce. How does that make it LEGAL?
MJ is ALREADY regulated by the federal govt. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:02 PM Author: motley puppy I repeat,
You've already shown that the gov't can allow Research labs to purchase it. Why couldn't it just expand that ability for everyone? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:07 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant It DOESN'T allow research labs to purchase it, it REGULATES such purchases when/if they are legal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760234) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: motley puppy oh, whoops... sorry about that, i guess I didn't understand your post.
I still don't see why Congress couldn't do that anyway if it wanted to, as the case below suggests it can. The fact that it never would want to is a totally different point. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:09 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Because of state's police powers. That's why they CAN'T. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760258) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:10 PM Author: motley puppy state police power argument was rejected in Raich. You are trying to say there is some difference between making something illegal and making something legal, and I don't see any con law to support you on that front. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760269) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:55 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Then maybe you need to learn some con law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763069) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:10 PM Author: motley puppy You have cited 0 cases to support your theory. How is the distinction you've made a rule of con law? It isn't, you've made it up, fucktard.
You agree that the federal government can effectively legalize pot throught the spending power, but this doesn't answer your question because states are somehow "participating" in the process even though its mandatory.
You agree that congress can ban the sale or distribution of pot, but have no limited the question to only, can they ban the existence of pot?
Your possession argument is trite - under federal drug laws, possession is a crime. If mere possession weren't interestate commerce, then those drug laws would be illegal. This issue was noted in raich. Because mere possession DOES effect interestate commerce, that means the congress could theoretically pass a law mandating that it is legal to possess it.
You either haven't read the cases, or you have read them but choosen to ignore what they say. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:39 PM Author: indigo state prole your logic is a bit ttt. it seems like you're saying that congress COULD NEVER do something because THEY HAVE NEVER done it or because THEY WOULDN'T WANT to do it. that doesn't make sense. it may not make any policy sense for congress to legalize marijuana, but that's a different question from whether they can do it. we've given you countless examples of how they could do it, and we've all admitted that the policy reasons against doing so are ample and overriding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759997) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:37 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Cipollone v. Liggett Group: Congress, using power from the Commerce Clause, states that "[n]o requirement based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes." This is held to preempt state laws regulating more strictly than allowed by Congress. In this case, Congress has the power to regulate which includes the power to preempt state limitations on the item.
Seriously, book-mark this thread, take Con Law, read the part of the case book on the Supremacy Clause and preemption, then reread you last post and have a good laugh at how little you knew before the course. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:44 PM Author: motley puppy wow, i'm impressed. I admit you know 1000 times more than I do. Well done. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760053) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:49 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy thanks
If only knowing Con Law somehow helped me in my 2L classes, I'd be set. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:49 PM Author: indigo state prole someone needs to STICKY this fucking post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760103) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:05 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant That doesn't mean the states can't outlaw it OUTRIGHT, and if you think they can, you are mistaken. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760222) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:14 PM Author: motley puppy Yes it does. outlawing cigarette advertising would be a "requirement", which is barred by the premption doctrine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760298) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:14 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Congress can prohibit stricter regulations, but if the regulation is so strict as to constitute a ban, the power suddenly disappears? I know that there's no reasoning with your defective mind, so I'll not waste either of our time so that I can study and you can go back to cybering with the people on TeenSpot.com . (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760305) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:46 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant "Congress can prohibit stricter regulations, but if the regulation is so strict as to constitute a ban, the power suddenly disappears?"
You guys don't seem to understand the difference between REGULATING something and proscribing its use altogether.
Congress can prohibit stricter regulations, but it can't prevent the states from outlawing it outright.
I suppose if a state were foolish enough to try to 'regulate' something so strictly that it effectively outlawed it, then Congress could render that 'regulating' void, but why would it do that when it can simply outlaw it?
Nonsense. Let's get back to the real world. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:59 PM Author: motley puppy That you seem to think that these distinctions matter is really funny. You haven't found a bullshit answer to the wagner act yet, though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760618) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:27 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Please give me a definition of "regulate" that does not include a ban.
Those dipshits at Black's Law Dictionary define "regulation" as "The act or process of controlling by rule or restriction."
Any rule or restriction (such as a ban) is a regulation. For the benefit of the people in your curve, I hope this isn't flame. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:34 PM Author: indigo state prole i see what you mean, but the way you wrote this isn't clear. you say: "Marijuana then comes under the purview of the Commerce Cl., allowing Congress to pass a law preempting all state laws to the contrary." to the contrary of what? to the contrary of the proposition that marijuana comes under the commerce clause's purview? are there state laws that say that marijuana doesn't come under the purview of the federal commerce clause? again, you don't need to explain anything because i get what you're saying; but it was unclear, is all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5759952) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:39 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Sorry for the ambiguity; Congress could declare the purchase and use of marijuana to be legal for all persons over the age of 21 and state that all state laws limiting such access are expressly preempted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760004) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:55 PM Author: motley puppy BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE ARGUEMENT? WHY WOULD IT DO SUCH A THING? WOULD THAT MAKE IT "LEGAL"?
argh. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Except it can't do that. Give an example if where it has ever done that before. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760241) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:09 PM Author: motley puppy It has never wanted to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760256) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:56 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Because it can't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763070) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:28 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Your logic is profound. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765129) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:13 PM Author: motley puppy I've never fucked a girl in the ass bareback. Is that because I can't? Or is that because I didn't want to? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765714) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:12 PM Author: indigo state prole that doesn't bear on the question of whether it can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760280) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life The question is not "did". The question is not "will". The FUCKING QUESTION IS CAN. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760314) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:16 PM Author: indigo state prole LOL, you are one wild bitch, but you're right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760327) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:26 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy "Except it can't do that."
I'm glad this is coming from the demanding LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
Just to humor you:
The Wagner Act (1935) forbade states from prohibiting unionization in any firm that affected interstate commerce. The Act took an area traditionally regulated by the states and made it against federal law for the state to ban the action. This is no different from Congress finding that marijuana affects interstate commerce and making it a violation of federal law for a state to ban its use.
Will you please shut up now? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:28 PM Author: motley puppy i actually was going to look up the unionization laws because I figured there had to be something, but I got a headache after a few wiki searches. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760411) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:30 PM Author: indigo state prole i told you dood. talking to ipfaggot = instant headache. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760420) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:34 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Nice find, but unfortunately IPGunner will not shut up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760452) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:37 PM Author: motley puppy he seems to have given up, thank god. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760473) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 6:50 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Please stop wasting internet bandwidth. You got PWN3D no matter how you try to manipulate the words "can", "legal", "government" and so on.
"Can" to you means "will" [your way to defeat the substantive due process argument] "Government" seems to mean "government acting, but not with the presence of a foriegn nation" [your means of beating the treaty power argument] You seem to be fooling with the term "legal" to side step the commerce and spending powers. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: indigo state prole a related note: IPGunner often bumps threads where he claims he pwn3d everyone. i think he always bumps the one about federal common law.
so whenever that little faggot gets out of line, this thread will be bumped. ty. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Except I PWN3D all of you, not the other way around. Nice try tho.
Don't you have a big investigative report to work on? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:11 PM Author: motley puppy yea, that the S.Ct. is required to follow foreign law was real pwnage, brother. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760276) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: indigo state prole HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760312) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:14 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Please respond to the spending power argument:
1) Congress determines that criminalization of marijuana _increases_ violent crime, and that decriminalization _would_ substantially reduce crime overall, particularly violent crime. Congress produces findings that incarceration of marijuana users and dealers substantially taxes the jducial system and prision system. They also produce findings that devoting time and resources on marijuana takes attention away from more important security matters.
2) Congress requires states to legalize marijuana or be denied federal funding for police, homeland security, prisons and anything else related to crime & punishment.
3) Court rejects a challenge of the law, relying on DOLE. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: balding generalized bond you're starting to PWN yourself by continuing arguing with this douchebag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760309) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:17 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life I consider arguing with witless douchebags practice for my future legal career. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760334) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:16 PM Author: motley puppy I think I can think something up for him...
that wouldn't MAKE it legal, it would just PERSUADE them to make it legal!!!!1 |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:18 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life If each state ultimately changed its laws, the federal government will have legalized marijuana. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760344) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:19 PM Author: motley puppy i agree with you, i'm just trying to think of what bullshit vocabulary game he would play. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760350) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:00 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Clearly the federal government acting together with the states could make MJ legal in a number of different ways, including a constitutional amendment.
That wasn't the question, however.
Can the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT legalize MJ? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:03 PM Author: motley puppy I knew you'd play that vocabulary game...
but yea, the feds could "effectively" make it legal... |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:58 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant The reason this doesn't work is that there IS no such colorable argument. You could make the use logic to show that the federal government could 'legalize' boiling your neighbor alive in battery acid.
The problem is, you need to ACTUALLY SUPPORT the arguments, not just MAKE them. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:00 PM Author: motley puppy "Congress determines that criminalization of marijuana _increases_ violent crime, and that decriminalization _would_ substantially reduce crime overall, particularly violent crime. Congress produces findings that incarceration of marijuana users and dealers substantially taxes the jducial system and prision system. They also produce findings that devoting time and resources on marijuana takes attention away from more important security matters. "
I think that is a fairly good argument, actually the best i've seen for decriminalizing pot. So what, you want blue umbrella to make the findings for you?
your counter-example is just retarded on so many levels. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:04 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You STILL need to show that such a finding exists, and it does not.
It isn't good enough to say that making MJ legal would reduce crime, because making MURDER legal would ALSO 'reduce crime'. That is a meaningless argument - making ANYTHING a crime will mean there will be more crime than there was before.
By this logic, the best way to reduce crime is to make NOTHING illegal. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:07 PM Author: motley puppy You are having a policy argument at this point. No one is claiming that this is going to happen, and you are really retarded for asking Blue Umbrella for fact findings.
If Congress felt that the criminalization of marijuana lead to more violent crime, i.e. drug smuggling or gang fights over pot sales, it could use those findings to create a law that makes pot legal, or in this case tie federal money to making it legal. Congress could either find statistics, or it could make them up.
edit: and look, blue umbrella has provided fact findings anyway!!! |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:13 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life As I said in a post a second ago, this is only subject to rational review, and there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that suggests that decriminalization of marijuana would REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME and conserve law enforcement and judicial resources for more dangerous crimes.
Just off the top of my head, violent crime fell 50-70% AFTER the repeal of prohibition. This is absolutely, 100% positively a winner under rational basis review before the current lineup of the Supreme Court.
http://www.google.com/search?q=war+on+drugs+violent+crime
You are trying to mischaracterize my point as saying that making everything legal makes nothing illegal. I am stating that making weed legal would reduce OTHER, WORSE TYPES OF CRIMES (theft, bribery, assualt, murder, etc - all of the sorts of crimes that arise from the inflated price of drugs because they are in a black market).
Some actual articles (tell me when to stop): http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/1/78 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5000367054 http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.cato-institute.org/pubs/journal/cj13n1/cj13n1-13.pdf http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v9y1995i4p175-92.html http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php%3Fpub_id%3D1017%26print%3DY%26full%3D1 |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:20 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant And yet the federal government has never been able to make alcohol legal.
Thanks for helping me prove my case. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:22 PM Author: motley puppy never been able != never tried, fucktard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760786) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:28 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Please point to something in DOLE or another Supreme Court case that would bar the federal government from legalizing something under the spending power. Your semantics are no good here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760836) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:31 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life When did the federal government attempt, but fail, to legalize alcohol?
No government ever wants to legalize anything. This is the inverse of what governments do. That is why I can't point to things that the government has legalized. Yet you fail to point to anything that the government TRIED TO LEGALIZE BUT FAILED TO LEGALIZE, thus pwning yourself on your own twisted logic. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:09 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life DOLE requires that the condition being imposed be directly related to one of the main purposes of federal highway money.
Here, I am changing the money in question to federal law enforcement funding.
The condition being imposed has to be in pursuit of the general welfare (reduce violent crime). It must be related to a federal interest (crime, health & welfare, homeland securtity). There can't be an independent Constitutional bar (definitely nothing in the Constitution that says you CAN'T smoke marijuana). And it can't be coercive.
The Court is going to review each of these things on a rational basis standard. There is substantial, credible academic research that supports the notion that criminlization of marijuana INCREASES violent crime and taxes the judicial and prison systems.
If you want to find out about that try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=war+on+drugs+violent+crime |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:59 PM Author: cowardly violet kitty cat stage IPG needs to stop with these threads. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760619) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:10 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant PWNING one person at a time is easy. Here I have PWN3D the entire board. That is a TRUE accomplishment.
I knew when I created the trap that a few dumb people would reflexively say 'of course the federal government can make it leagal,' because they think it can do ANYTHING if it wants to. They are wrong.
I also knew that a bunch of others would jump in on the side that appeared to have the most backup. The rule of thumb on XOXO is 'if enough people take a side that side must be right.' They are wrong.
I also knew that most of the truly knowledgable people wouldn't take a side - they would suspect I am right, but they would be afraid to take my side against overwhelming opposition.
I have PWN3D the entire board. I will post this thread and the one before it periodically so that I can relive this triumph. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:11 PM Author: motley puppy still waiting for those cases that say that the US S.Ct. is bound by foreign law in deciding federalism cases...
So far we've given you at least two ways:
it could pass a law, like the wagner act
it could tie federal money, effectively making it legal.
How much more do you want, dumbass? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:18 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I've already addressed both of these - multiple times, in fact. Just look through this and the other thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760766) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:19 PM Author: motley puppy You never addressed the wagner act, http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&mc=158&forum_id=2#5760398
and your response to the spending power arguement was pure vocabulary game bullshit. You are the ultimate fucktard. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: balding generalized bond lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760732) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:17 PM Author: indigo state prole haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760757) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:40 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Though not dispositive, it is exceedingly odd that not a single other person supports your position (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760918) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:41 PM Author: motley puppy apparently they were scared:
"I also knew that most of the truly knowledgable people wouldn't take a side - they would suspect I am right, but they would be afraid to take my side against overwhelming opposition. " |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:42 PM Author: indigo state prole haha, a conspiracy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760933) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:43 PM Author: motley puppy I think we make a good gang... we've scared off all these "truly knowlegeable posters" through our mafia like aggression. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760941) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:50 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Just like the last thread, he waits until we have 3-4 really refined arguments and then disappears. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760990) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 9:08 PM Author: motley puppy What this thread really needs is one post by "nigga plz" at the bottom. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5761135) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 9:28 PM Author: Brass affirmative action more feces (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5761287) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:28 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Wagner Act issue:
This act seeks to preserve worker's rights to collective bargaining, etc. It makes ILLEGAL attempts by states to outlaw unions, among other things. Or you could say that it forces states to recognize that unions must be legal.
The problem with the analogy that this can also force states to recognize the 'legality' of marijuana is that, according to the act, preventing unions is interference with interstate commerce. IE the COMMERCE involves the labor, and the attempt to outlaw unions is regulation of interstate commerce, which the Wager Act forbids the states to do.
The statute does not speak to the commerce ITSELF - ie the labor.
The Act does not say anything about whether or not states can make legal or illegal the commerce ITSELF - ie the labor.
Now, you might answer by saying 'well then by your argument if the fed govt can't stop the states from making MJ illegal, it can't stop them from making LABOR illegal, and that is preposterous!' It IS preposterous that a state could outlaw labor, but it has nothing to do with the fact that a state CAN outlaw marijunana.
I quote (from the Wagner Act):
"Authority of the NLRB--Enterprises whose operations affect commerce. The NLRB gets its authority from Congress by way of the National Labor Relations Act. The power of Congress to regulate labor-management relations is limited by the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Although it can declare generally what the rights of employee are or should be, Congress can make its declaration of rights effective only in respect to enterprises whose operations "affect commerce" and labor disputes that "affect commerce." The NLRB, therefore, can direct elect ions and certify the results only in the case of an employer whose operations affect commerce. Similarly, it can act to prevent unfair labor practices only in cases involving labor disputes that affect, or would affect, commerce."
You analogy fails. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:35 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I should make clearer:
This act states explicitly that it has NO effect when the underlying labor does not involve interstate commerce, or where it involves a religion. IE it CANNOT prevent the states from outlawing unions where the commerce isn't interstate, or involves the church. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:18 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy "This act seeks to preserve worker's rights to collective bargaining, etc. It makes ILLEGAL attempts by states to outlaw unions, among other things. Or you could say that it forces states to recognize that unions must be legal."
No. The Wagner Act states that the a state cannot ban a specific economic activity (organization of labor). The hypothetical federal law states that a state cannot ban an economic activity (sale and consumption of marijuana). Give me authority saying that this is incorrect.
"The statute does not speak to the commerce ITSELF - ie the labor." The act regulates the commercial activity of organizing, while our law deals with the commercial activity of sale and consumption of a product (this is commercial activity per Wickard and Raich).
You researched the statute and this is the best you could do? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:51 AM Author: motley puppy "You researched the statute and this is the best you could do?"
He thinks that the more he talks, the cooler he is, i think... |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:53 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy The Wagner Act regulated labor. This bill would regulate marijuana. Labor starts with an entirely different letter than marijuana. Until you show a federal law limiting the states' ability to ban something that begins with an "M," you can't win this argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762744) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:54 AM Author: motley puppy Why would they ever do that? I mean, it might violate the 1st amendment to discriminate against letters like that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762759) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:32 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant As for the other challenges - I think I've addressed every single one at least once. Some of them have been addressed many times. I don't want to keep answering the same questions over and over - please scan the threads to see if something has been addressed before asking again.
If you have a NEW issue, please feel free to raise it.
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:41 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life Please point to something in DOLE or another Supreme Court case that would bar the federal government from legalizing something under the spending power. Your semantics are no good here.
I have cited authority. You have not. It is not sufficient to ask for me to prove that the federal government has at some time used the spending power to legalize an act. (By the way, you fail to point to anything that the government TRIED TO LEGALIZE BUT FAILED TO LEGALIZE.) I have shown that they CAN. Unless you can cite some spending power cases that distingush DOLE, you're PWN3D. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I cited the motherfucking Wagner Act itself. How's THAT for citing authority?
"The scope of the commerce clause is limited, however, by the first amendment's prohibition against Congress' enacting laws restricting the free exercise of religion. Because of this potential conflict, and because Congress has not clearly expressed an intention that the Act cover lay faculty in church-operated schools, the Supreme Court has held that the Board may not assert jurisdiction over faculty members in such institutions."
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/basicguide.asp |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life *SPENDING POWER* YOU ILLITERATE FAG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762333) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:49 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant The Wagner Act has something to do with the spending power how exactly?
I've already addressed the spending power numerous times. There must be a nexus between the spending and the legislation. Also note that the STATES have a CHOICE in whether to enact or repeal (as the case may be) the sought-for legislation.
This is not the federal government acting alone, it is concerted state and federal government activity. Why don't you just have them adopt a constitutional amendment? That would be even better. But also does not answer my question.
PWN3D! (again) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:53 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life If each of the states decriminalize marijuana due to the spending power, then the federal government legalized it. This is one way the federal government can legalize marijuana.
The Wagener Act has nothing to do with the spending power, which is why I have no clue why you cited it.
The mere fact that you have tried, but failed, to defeat the spending power argument on substantive grounds means you submit that if the spending power argument prevails, your query is satisfied. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:02 AM Author: motley puppy "The Wagner Act has something to do with the spending power how exactly?"
You cited it fucktard. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 6:33 PM Author: indigo state prole dood you're the one who cited it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766920) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You have never shown me one thing they can legalize. I PWN3D you on the Wagner Act issue.
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:46 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life What has the federal government tried to legalize, but failed to legalize under the spending power? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762341) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:52 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You don't seem to get that even if there WERE no case where the fed govt tried to legalize something and failed, that would not be dispositive of the issue either way.
How would finding one, or not finding one, prove the point? It would not. Therefore finding one is totally irrelevant.
Explain to me how it would be dispositive. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:55 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life "that would not be dispositive of the issue either way."
Thank you for understanding my point. You were arguing that because the federal government never used the spending power to legalize something, that it was proof that they had no such power. I simply revealed this to be a worthless argument by posing the inverse.
You have previously dodged the substantive elements of the spending power argument by saying that "And yet the federal government has never been able to make alcohol legal. Thanks for helping me prove my case."
http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&mc=179&forum_id=2#5760775 |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:13 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant "You were arguing that because the federal government never used the spending power to legalize something, that it was proof that they had no such power. "
Absolutely wrong. I never said that that PROVED they had no such power. I was merely suggesting that it is highly suspect that there IS no such case where they were able to do it.
Of course if there WERE such a case, it would give your side a big boost - I challenged you to find one to support your case if one existed, not to prove mine if you failed.
I like how you edited the post I answered to. When you do that make sure you identify what was edited, please. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:18 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life I edited to provide a link to your contention that the fact that "And yet the federal government has never been able to make alcohol legal" somehow defeated my argument under DOLE.
PWN3D
EDIT: The only edit i added to the other post was factual findings, which you seemed to be disputing.
EDIT2: I don't care about 'highly suspect'. Please defeat my DOLE arguement on substantive grounds, citing case law or refuting my factual findings. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant More on my PWNING of the Wagner Act issue:
I should have posted this before. Quoting from the Wagner Act:
"The scope of the commerce clause is limited, however, by the first amendment's prohibition against Congress' enacting laws restricting the free exercise of religion. Because of this potential conflict, and because Congress has not clearly expressed an intention that the Act cover lay faculty in church-operated schools, the Supreme Court has held that the Board may not assert jurisdiction over faculty members in such institutions."
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/basicguide.asp |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:09 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy "The scope of the commerce clause is limited, however, by the first amendment's prohibition against Congress' enacting laws restricting the free exercise of religion."
What the fuck does the First Amendment have to do with this case? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:19 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant That is a direct quote from the act itself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762532) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:21 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy I know. At what point did anyone assert that the Commerce Clause is superior to the First Amendment? What does the First Amendment have to do with marijuana? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762549) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:26 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Someone cited to the Wagner Act which prohibited states from outlawing labor unions, I explained why that wasn't relevant to this question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762587) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:27 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Date: May 11th, 2006 12:21 AM Author: stickle
I know. At what point did anyone assert that the Commerce Clause is superior to the First Amendment? What does the First Amendment have to do with marijuana?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762549) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:32 AM Author: indigo state prole what's IPGunner's problem? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762627) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:43 AM Author: motley puppy I think he sincerely doesn't get it... that is the only way to explain his stupidity on this thread... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762688) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:56 AM Author: motley puppy I love how you quote entirely irrelevant passages of the act and suggest they support your argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762769) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:58 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant They are completely relevant, and they wholly support my argument. Explain how they are not relevant and/or how they don't support my argument, please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763080) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:02 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Please address each of these points. I am using the DOLE framework, and if you believe that I have mischaracterized DOLE, pleaes inform me. Please cite Supreme Court case law. Even feel free to dispute my factual findings. **** DOLE required that the *condition* being imposed be *directly related* to one of the *main purposes* of federal highway *funding*. Thus, the rule is that the condition imposed must be directly related to the main purpose of the funding being withheld.
Moreover, the condition being imposed has to be: 1) in pursuit of the general welfare (reduce violent crime). 2)It must be related to a federal interest (crime, health & welfare, homeland securtity). 3) There can't be an independent Constitutional bar (definitely nothing in the Constitution that says you CAN'T smoke marijuana). 4) And it can't be coercive.
The Court is going to review each of these things on a rational basis standard. There is substantial, credible academic research that supports the notion that criminlization of marijuana INCREASES violent crime and taxes the judicial and prison systems.
Again, this is only subject to rational review, and there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that suggests that decriminalization of marijuana would REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME and conserve law enforcement and judicial resources for more dangerous crimes.
Just off the top of my head, violent crime fell 50-70% AFTER the repeal of prohibition. This is absolutely, 100% positively a winner under rational basis review before the current lineup of the Supreme Court.
You are trying to mischaracterize my point as saying that making everything legal makes nothing illegal. I am stating that making weed legal would reduce OTHER, WORSE TYPES OF CRIMES (theft, bribery, assualt, murder, etc - all of the sorts of crimes that arise from the inflated price of drugs because they are in a black market).
Some actual articles (tell me when to stop):
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/1/78
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5000367054
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.cato-institute.org/pubs/journal/cj13n1/cj13n1-13.pdf
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v9y1995i4p175-92.html
Finally, you have submitted that it is not dispositive whether or not the federal government has used the spending power to legalize an activity before. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:24 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant It can't be coercive, therefore the states have a choice in the matter, and can simply choose to pass on the funds.
I have said (many times) that the question is if the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can make marijuana legal. NOT STATE + FEDERAL. They could just pass a constitutional amendment if state + federal was a good answer to the question.
OR, even simpler - the federal govt and each state govt could just decide to repeal all laws making it illegal. Very simple.
Your point is completely irrelevant - too bad you wasted so much time on your post without thinking things through. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:30 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Read DOLE dumbass. There is an extremely high standard for "coercion." Obviously the law behind DOLE was successful because each state did increase the drinking age.
Your argument about state/federal is pure semantics. You would have us believe that when the federal government withheld highway funds until the drinking age was 21, and each state raised its drinking age, that the federal government was not responsible for raising the drinking age.
If the federal government conditioned spending on states decriminalizing marijuana, and all 50 states did, then the federal government will have MADE (your word choice, not mine) marijuana illegal. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:35 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant It STILL REQUIRES state involvement. Therefore it fails. Why not just say 'the federal govt and all the state govts repeal their laws illegalizing marijuana.' Isn't that an equally valid answer? It is, except the question is if the FEDERAL government can do it.
Again, your argument fails. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:37 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life If the federal government conditioned spending on states decriminalizing marijuana, and all 50 states did, then the federal government will have MADE (your word choice, not mine) marijuana legal.
This is one way the federal government CAN LEGALIZE marijuana (cause marijuana to be legal)
LOGIC101PWN3d
|
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:40 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant *sigh*
At the risk of repeating myself, this involves state action and therefore fails. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:44 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life The federal government caused the drinking age to be raised to 21. Likewise, the can cause marijuana to be legal. Please tell me why those statements are false. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762694) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:45 AM Author: motley puppy It only fails because you have a retardedly narrow definition of "legalize"
The federal govenrment can legalize it through this method, just perhaps not in the direct way that you want. If congress wanted pot to be legal, they could make it legal. To suggest that states giving in so not to lose their federal highway money is somehow "participation" is beyond retarded.
But who cares? You are just playing a vocabulary game, and you are wrong on the wagner act too. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:48 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life As long as he continually redefines the question (notice how none of the litany of exceptions he had thrown out were in his original question) he can never "lose" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762717) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:54 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant The question remains as it has always been, and has never changed.
I keep having to remind people what the question is because they keep trying to answer the wrong question. Don't do that on law school exams, for your own good. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:31 PM Author: motley puppy The question was:
"can the federal government make pot legal?"
Well, yes it can, under the spending power. No state would give up all of its federal money, and would quickly follow the federal policy.
You have changed the question to:
"can the federal government pass a law specifically making it illegal?"
Anyway, yes it can, as described below. |
|
Date: May 12th, 2006 8:54 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I've answered this many times already. This is not how the spending power works. The FG can't threaten to withhold ALL federal spending in the state. It cannot be coercive and the states still have a choice.
If you want to involve the states, just have all states + FG repeal all laws making MJ illegal, or pass a constitutional amendment. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:57 AM Author: indigo state prole i think he's playing a semantics game, not a vocabulary one. either way, he lost a long time ago (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762774) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:58 AM Author: motley puppy "legalize" vs. "compel" i thought was the game...
but yea, he's an idiot. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:39 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Its also fairly transparent that you resort to this semantical distinction after getting repeatedly PWN3D on the merits of DOLE, which it is clear you've never read. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762661) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:57 AM Author: motley puppy "It can't be coercive, therefore the states have a choice in the matter, and can simply choose to pass on the funds. "
BWAHAHAHAHA! |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:52 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant This is the very heart of the spending power. Take con law and then get back to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763053) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:01 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Again, the standard for coercion is virtually nonexistent. The restriction on spending can clearly be enough in order to convience the states to change the law. In DOLE it was 5%. So I propose that the federal government withhold 5% of all federal funding for law enforcement and homeland security. The coercion problems drops out.
|
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:29 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I am only focusing on the state involvement because that alone is dispositive in not answering my question satisfactorilly.
There are other reasons why it does not above and beyond that, namely that the federal governent would have to show a nexus between a federal govt interest and the funds at stake.
A spending power solution will fail for either one or both of these reasons. Clearly, merely addressing one is not satisfactory. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:31 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy There isn't a nexus between law enforcement and criminal law? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763257) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:32 AM Author: Flushed Trip Dragon Well, "nexus" is one of the biggest legal fudge words (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763264) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:32 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life NEXUS: Already addressed this in a huge way. I linked to several studies that demonstrate that prohibition increases violent crime. On that basis they withhold federal law enforcement and homeland security funding.
HOW ARE YOU POSSIBLY NOT GETTING THIS??
FEDS WANT TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME -> WITHHOLD FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Any other issues I need to address? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:20 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy
Reply
Date: May 10th, 2006 7:46 PM Author: IPGunner
"Congress can prohibit stricter regulations, but if the regulation is so strict as to constitute a ban, the power suddenly disappears?"
You guys don't seem to understand the difference between REGULATING something and proscribing its use altogether.
Congress can prohibit stricter regulations, but it can't prevent the states from outlawing it outright.
I suppose if a state were foolish enough to try to 'regulate' something so strictly that it effectively outlawed it, then Congress could render that 'regulating' void, but why would it do that when it can simply outlaw it?
Nonsense. Let's get back to the real world.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5760525)
Date: May 10th, 2006 8:27 PM Author: stickle
Please give me a definition of "regulate" that does not include a ban.
Those dipshits at Black's Law Dictionary define "regulation" as "The act or process of controlling by rule or restriction."
Any rule or restriction (such as a ban) is a regulation. For the benefit of the people in your curve, I hope this isn't flame. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:39 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Wow you're dumb. How many times have I said that the federal government CAN use the commerce power to BAN something (under certain circumstances.)
I'm saying that the federal government can't use the commerce clause to FORCE a state to LEGALIZE something. It CAN be used to make something illegal.
There really is no need to copy any of my posts, I have no intention of editing any of them. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:45 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy I copied the post because you didn't respond to it.
You stated that the federal government can prohibt a state from REGULATING a product into illegality, but that the federal government cannot stop a state from BANNING the product.
You concede that a ban by operation of a state regulation could be proscribed by Congress, but that an outright state ban is beyond Congress' authority. Please explain why the state ban is not a regulation. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:02 AM Author: indigo state prole i don't get it. the controlled substances act is merely a consolidation of laws which regulates the manufacture and distribution of various substances. depending on the schedule in which an item is placed, it may or may not be effectively banned from being distributed or manufactured. is IPGunner really saying that the controlled substances act, because it is a consolidation of regulations, doesn't ban anything? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762795) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:51 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant If a state could ban something, but instead chose (for whatever retarded reason) to regulate it so strictly as to effectively ban it, and assuming it was not allowed to regulate it via the commerce clause, then presumably the fed govt would invalidate the 'regulation' and then the state would turn around and make it illegal.
Why would it regulate so as to make it illegal, when it can make it illegal in the first place?
This makes no sense, and in any case it does nothing to answer my question. Try again.
If a state say 'X is illegal', that is NOT a regulation of commerce.
There are many many examples of state laws making things illegal that the fed govt otherwise regulates. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:11 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy I hate line-by-line responses, but here goes:
"If a state could ban something, but instead chose (for whatever retarded reason) to regulate it so strictly as to effectively ban it, and assuming it was not allowed to regulate it via the commerce clause, then presumably the fed govt would invalidate the 'regulation' and then the state would turn around and make it illegal."
No one is asserting that the Commerce Clause is limiting the state; the Commerce Clause is empowering the federal government.
"Why would it regulate so as to make it illegal, when it can make it illegal in the first place?"
A ban is a type of regulation. How do you not see this?
"This makes no sense, and in any case it does nothing to answer my question."
I'm the one asking what the difference between a ban and a regulation is.
"If a state say 'X is illegal', that is NOT a regulation of commerce."
This conclusively shows that you don’t even know what we’re talking about. The Commerce Clause deals with FEDERAL regulations of commerce, not states banning marijuana.
"There are many many examples of state laws making things illegal that the fed govt otherwise regulates."
This point is not in contention and has no bearing on the states' ability to ban something with that ban is expressly preempted by federal law. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:25 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You are using ONE definition of 'regulate,' but not the LEGAL definition of 'regulate' as it pertains to the commerce clause, to conclude that banning is regulating. It is not. Even where the federal government regulates, states are free to ban.
"This point is not in contention and has no bearing on the states' ability to ban something with that ban is expressly preempted by federal law."
Give an example of a ban being expressly forbidden by federal law. There are a few, but I will distinguish them all from the case of marijuana.
For example - abortion. SCOTUS found a fundamental right via the equal protection clause. Not applicable to marijuana (and highly criticized, and wouldn't come out the same way today if heard for the first time.)
|
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:29 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy What, pray tell, is the LEGAL definition of regulate? Was Black's Law Dictionary not a legal enough definition?
"Give an example of a ban being expressly forbidden by federal law."
You were smashed on the Wagner Act above, so why don't you respond to the points made or admit defeat? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:38 AM Author: magenta glittery whorehouse Nope. Abortion is not a fundamental right per the EP clause. Try again. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763284) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:39 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life How about take a look act GIBBONS v. OGDEN! NY had banned all other ship owners from operating a steamship. This ban was struck down and GIBBONS was allowed to operate.
JUSTICEMARSHALLPWN3D |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:40 AM Author: magenta glittery whorehouse Nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763298) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:41 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Shit, that was good. I salute you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763308) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:56 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Don't get too excited - it wasn't that good. See below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763382) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:50 AM Author: indigo state prole PWN3D111 justice marshall was one smart faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763357) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:55 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Not PWN3D, sorry to disappoint you. See below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763380) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:53 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant That's because navigating a steamship is commerce. A state cannot pass laws regarding who can or cannot sail down up the river in a steamboat if that activity is in intersate commerce.
Note, however, that there is another case from the same era (don't recall name) where it was NOT interstate commerce, where the ship was sailing only within the state, and the state could regulate it.
Marijuana is NOT interstate commerce. The SALE of it is, and the federal government can (and does) regulate it, or prohibit it. But 'marijuana' is not. The states can prohibit it via their police powers.
Try again. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:57 AM Author: Flushed Trip Dragon "Marijuana is NOT interstate commerce."
Well, Raich partly addressed this. The marijuana wasn't sold or anything; it was simply grown. The Court still found that it passed the "substantially affects interstate commerce" prong. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:01 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant SALE of MJ is interstate commerce, just as is alcohol. GROWING is interstate commerce, just as the production of alcohol is interstate commerce. MJ is NOT interstate commerce, and neither is alcohol.
The fed government can most definitely regulate its sale (it does) and its cultivation (don't know if it does, but probably does) - that does not make it legal or illegal.
EDIT - Let me add this:
I've never said that the fed govt can't make something ILLEGAL under the commerce clause - it definitely can.
|
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:05 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Determining whether something is legal or illegal has alot to do with the sale of that good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763430) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:07 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant States can say something is illegal via their police powers, regardless of whether the federal govt regulates it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763440) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:15 PM Author: motley puppy Wrong. Police power argument rejected in Raich. Federal government can say whether mere possession is a crime, BECAUSE MERE POSSESSION IS INTERESTATE COMMERCE, you fag. You can't say Ogden doesn't apply because it does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765724) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:29 PM Author: indigo state prole did you even read raich or ogden? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765808) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:15 AM Author: Flushed Trip Dragon "MJ is NOT interstate commerce, and neither is alcohol."
I am not sure what you mean by MJ in the most abstract sense. Excluding instrumentalities of interstate commerce, I agree that objects in themselves do not constitute "interstate commerce." But, if you cannot grow or sale/distribute MJ, what kind of situation would arise where you would need to regulate it? I can't think of one off-hand, but admittingly my imagination is duller than usual after the writing competition. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:19 AM Author: indigo state prole yeah, i didn't get it either. MJ in the abstract isn't interstate commerce? did anyone say that it was? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763474) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:26 AM Author: Flushed Trip Dragon My impression was that IP was making a theoretical point: the federal government cannot legalize an abstract entity (differentiated from an instrumentality of interstate commerce, which is - in itself - reachable by the CC as an object). But, I don't really see where he is going with this line of analysis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763498) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:34 AM Author: indigo state prole exactly. it doesn't really help his argument. if marijuana is being used in such a way that it can fairly be considered an instrumentality of commerce (and apparently, it was, in raich), then the government may theoretically regulate and legalize it, even if it is illegal under state law. this is a separate question from whether marijuana in the abstract is interstate commerce, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763529) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:42 AM Author: Flushed Trip Dragon Yeah - these are two different lines of analysis (although I wouldn't necessarily say that Raich held that MJ was an instrumentality of commerce, but rather an activity that was part of an overall economic scheme).
If MJ was really an instrumentality like a highway, I don't think that you have to go through the "substantially affects IC" test. But, even though MJ probably isn't an instrumentality, it's reachable through Raich (substantially affects IC economic scheme). |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:12 PM Author: motley puppy mere possession of pot is interestate commerce. see Raich. Under your distinction, that "mj is a plant", all of the federal drug laws are unconstitutional because they make it a crime to simply possess drugs. YOu don't need to be caught selling crack to be found guilty under federal drug laws.
You are worse than retarded. At least retards have an excuse. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:58 AM Author: magenta glittery whorehouse Flawed: the argument presupposes its conclusion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763393) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:06 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant How is that, exactly? Don't be sloppy - show your work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763436) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:07 AM Author: magenta glittery whorehouse "That's because navigating a steamship is commerce."
Done.
Ass.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot this part:
"Marijuana is NOT interstate commerce." |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:16 PM Author: motley puppy The plant marijuana can not be placed in jail.
Possession of pot is interestate commerce. See raich. OTherwise all federal drug laws would be unconstitutional. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:00 AM Author: indigo state prole but the marijuana growers in raich weren't selling the in interstate commerce, were they? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763403) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:03 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Again (for the 10000 time) - you guys are pointing out cites where the federal govt uses the commerce power to make something ILLEGAL. OF course they can do that. I've never said otherwise.
They CAN'T use that power to make something LEGAL, however. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:06 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life GIBBONS v. OGDEN, the made something legal that was deemed illegal by the state.
It was ILLEGAL for GIBBONS to operate under state law. The Court ruled that it was LEGAL for GIBBONS to operate under federal law and NY was trumped through the commerce power.
It is currently ILLEGAL to sell marijuana. If Congress wanted to legalize the trade, state law would be trumped through the commerce power.
I am getting dumber just reading your responses.
Also, respond to my nexus point: http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&mc=236&forum_id=2#5763265 |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:09 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant RE Gibbons - sailing a steamship in that is interstate commerce. There was another case around that time where the ship was only moving in state, commerce clause couldn't touch it.
MJ is a plant, not interstate commerce. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:11 AM Author: indigo state prole i don't want to get bogged down in this silly nonsense, but if a california said: "it is now illegal for all california citizens to buy or sell any products from another state," you don't think congress could make it legal for california citizens to buy and sell products from people in other states? or are you going to respond with "california wouldn't ever do that anyway, so poo poo on you." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763452) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:14 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant It would be unconstitutional for the state to do that for a different reason. States can't pass laws that are prejudicial to goods from another state. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763462) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:16 AM Author: indigo state prole um, that wasn't the question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763467) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:22 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant "if a california said: "it is now illegal for all california citizens to buy or sell any products from another state," you don't think congress could make it legal for california citizens to buy and sell products from people in other states?"
Yes, I do think the federal government could make it legal for CA citizens to buy and sell products from people in other states. (assuming they weren't legal for some other reason that wasn't unconstitutional.) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:28 AM Author: indigo state prole but wait, wouldn't that be an instance of the federal government making LEGAL an activity that is ILLEGAL under state law? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763505) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:32 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Yup, it would make the purchases legal that were otherwise made illegal under state law. The reason is that state's cannot pass laws that favor the goods/services of their own state over those of another.
The question was (again) whether the federal government can make marijuana legal. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:36 AM Author: indigo state prole "Yup, it would make the purchases legal that were otherwise made illegal under state law."
ok, could the fed gov do this pursuant to the commerce power? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:17 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Suppose a state passed a law that stated that federal highways could not pass through the state (other roads are fine). Would that be struck down under the commerce power? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763473) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:19 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant It would be struck down under a number of different ways, including imminent domain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763477) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:21 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Exactly how is that a "taking"?
EDIT: Emminent domain doesn't matter. For this hypothetical the state agrees to pay "just compensation" for the taking.
What are the other ways you would strike it down? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:28 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant The federal government uses eminent domain to buy the land for the road, and builds the road. It doesn't need the state's permission.
As for other ways to strike it down - do your own homework. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:31 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life I'm saying PREVIOUSLY BUILT federal highways - the state government passes a law (using its police powers) that do not allow this highways to be used by motorists. Constitutional? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763516) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:33 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant No. Driving on roads is interstate commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763527) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:35 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life What is the state makes CARS and any other motor vehicles in and of themselves illegal. You can walk on the roads.
Constitutional? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:21 PM Author: motley puppy So is possession of pot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765766) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:22 AM Author: indigo state prole what are the other ways? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763487) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:29 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Do your own homework. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763508) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:03 PM Author: motley puppy A.k.a. i'm a fucktard who doesn't know shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765648) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:20 AM Author: indigo state prole and notice that the statute here makes it ILLEGAL for federal highways to pass through the state. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763479) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:24 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Right, but federal highways are not marijuana. I don't think you'll have much luck coming up with an imminent domain argument for compelling states to recognize the legality of marijuana, sorry.
Dood, stick to journalism or investigative reporting or getting a masters degree or whatever it is you do. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:12 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Congress is making the sale of marijuana legal. Are you arguing that the sale of a good or service is not commerce? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763456) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:16 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Yes, the sale is commerce. The federal government can either prohibit it or regulate it.
The thing itself is not commerce. The states can prohibit things via their police power. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:19 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Suppose the law is worded: "No state shall regulate the sale, use, or possession of marijuana in interstate commerce."
What's the state's response?
|
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:18 PM Author: motley puppy "MJ is a plant, not interstate commerce."
Possession of pot is interestate commerce. See Raich. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have been severely OGD#NPWN#D |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:20 PM Author: motley puppy You are saying "oh, ogden doesn't apply because its not interestate commerce"
we say "mere possesion of pot was interestate commerce"
you say "oh, well, you can't make things legal"
we say "yea you can, ogden."
Your argument is circular and it is wrong. Pot is interestate commerce, Raich says that. Otherwise, all federal drug laws would be constitutional. Can congress make something legal? Yes, if its interestate commerce, see ogden. Because possession of pot is interestate commerce, it can make that legal. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:40 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Abortion is substantive due process. Please please please, do yourself a favor and quit PWNING yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763300) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:54 AM Author: Fishy mood It's pretty pathetic that IPGunner has to change his hypo each time someone PWNS him, adding another level of exceptions to his original post in order to convolute the clear meaning of his OP. How sad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5762752) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 1:51 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I've never changed the question. Sometimes people try to answer a different question, and I have to remind them what the original question was. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763051) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:34 AM Author: magenta glittery whorehouse Your stunningly poor analysis indicates you're either a 1L, or worse, a 0L.
This is an astonishingly easy answer: Yes. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:52 AM Author: indigo state prole he's claims that he's a biglaw patent attorney (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763367) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:17 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant As I've said 10000 times, explain how. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763470) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:30 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy Have you read this thread? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765140) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:50 AM Author: magenta glittery whorehouse Do we think he's just fucking around, or really that stupid? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763358) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:59 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant No one has ever been able to identify a SINGLE THING that the federal government has 'legalized' under a set of circumstances that would also allow for the possibility that MJ could be legalized.
And I continue to point out that alcohol, dancing, rolling papers, tattoo parlors, and pit bulls are all illegal SOMEWHERE, despite federal regulation of some of these, and yet no one seems to get it yet.
This is truly the most thorough PWNAGE of all time. Notice none of the smart posters are jumping to your defense, guys. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:24 AM Author: indigo state prole well, to be fair, people offered you gibbons v ogden, and you "distinguished" it on the ground that - get ready for this - "marijuana is a plant, not interstate commerce."
well, i'd posit that a ship is a ship, not interestate commerce. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:26 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Yes, that is correct. MJ is a plant, and not interstate commerce.
'Things' are not interstate commerce. If someone can think of a case that contradicts this I'd like to see it. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:29 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Wheat simply grown and used for your own purposes is interstate commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763507) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:29 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Growing is interstate commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763511) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:31 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Growing and using marijuana, therefore, is interstate commerce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763519) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:34 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Using is not interstate commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763530) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:36 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Is the consumption of a good not interstate commerce? Please CITE COURT CASES. Because consumption of a good seems quite economic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763549) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 4:13 AM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy WICKARPWN3D!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763712) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 4:15 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Yeah, its pretty unreal. We've cited a dozen or so court cases. He has cited zero. And then he simply makes up what he thinks the holding of each of these cases is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763719) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 4:20 AM Author: indigo state prole i stopped taking him seriously after he said that the US was bound by the laws of other countries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763736) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:34 AM Author: indigo state prole thus... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763536) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:36 AM Author: Flushed Trip Dragon Your distinction above is arguably correct. If the "thing" is an "interstate highway," you could regulate the "highway" under the CC, whereas you couldn't regulate a "pig" (providing that the pig is not in fact a vehicle).
But, I don't really see how this makes a difference in practical effect, since the "thing" has to make its appearence in the world, sooner or later. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:23 PM Author: motley puppy possession of pot is interestate commerce. See raich. under your theory, all of the federal drug laws are unconstitutional because they make it illegal to possess drugs. This was specifically rejected in Raich. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765778) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:29 AM Author: Bisexual well-lubricated wrinkle Someone tell me what school this moron goes to so we can start clowning on them for practicing AA for retards. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763509) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:30 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I've already graduated. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763513) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:42 AM Author: Bisexual well-lubricated wrinkle From where?
And do the people at your current place of employment marvel at your legal reasoning skills? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:53 AM Author: indigo state prole i hope he doesn't have to work with any cases or statutes. MALPRACTICEINSURANCEPWN3D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763623) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:38 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Gotta go to sleep now guys. It has been fun.
Did you really think I chose this question without careful thought? I knew I would draw you all into a trap - dumb posters first.
There still hasn't been a single intelligent, knowledgable poster who has come to your defense. I expected they would also be afraid to take my side, given the overwhelming opposition.
Of course, the first person to break the seal and join the right side would definitely be going a long way to establish their position on this board as a voice of authority. I don't really expect it to happen tho. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:39 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Consumption of wheat is commerce. True or false. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763562) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:41 AM Author: indigo state prole this is good. a simple yes or no is the best route. i did the same below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763571) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:42 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I gave a yes or no answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763581) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:46 AM Author: indigo state prole you said: "Yup, it would make the purchases legal that were otherwise made illegal under state law."
i asked: "ok, could the fed gov do this pursuant to the commerce power?"
so i'm assuming the answer is yes, since you obviously gave me a yes or no answer, right? right. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:57 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant No, it couldn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763640) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:30 PM Author: indigo state prole why? because selling and buying products from other states isn't interstate commerce? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765823) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:41 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Growing wheat is. Consuming it is not.
I know the case you are referring to. In that case farmers grew it and consumed it themselves. The aggregate effect had an effect on interstate commerce.
The GROWING was the crucial element there, not the consuming. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:45 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life PWN3D
Under the commerece clause Congress can regulate a non-economic activity if, in aggregate, that activity has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The use of weed might be non commerce, but weed can't be used unless it is grown, bought, sold, and transported in interstate commerce. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:39 AM Author: indigo state prole "Yup, it would make the purchases legal that were otherwise made illegal under state law."
ok, could the fed gov do this pursuant to the commerce power? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:57 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant No, it couldn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763644) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:42 AM Author: Claret senate cuckoldry This thread is simply incredible. I thought conlaw was taught to 1ls at all U.S. law schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763579) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:43 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Most of these people have not been to law school, hence all the retarded theories. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763589) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:06 PM Author: motley puppy I don't think he was supporting you, fucktard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765673) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:42 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life I have compiled a list of Supreme Court cases that IPGunner relies on in his argument: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763586) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:48 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Scalia in GONZALES: The Commerce Clause "permits Congress to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States **but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions**, and to restrict it be eliminating potential stimulants.”
Congress wishes to facilitate the interstate commerece of marijuana. Thus, any potential obstruction to that goal can be struck under the commerce clause.
This is your answer, folks. A statement, from the most recent commerce clause case, that makes clear that the commerece power can be used to ELIMINATE OBSTRUCTIONS to commerce.
This was Scalia's summation of the ENTIRE HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT CASES concerning the commerce power. It is pretty unequivocal.
SCALIA PWN3D |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:56 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You don't understand this case do you? It is not applicable. Take con law then maybe you will understand. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763631) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 4:01 AM Author: Claret senate cuckoldry Explain, please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763661) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:21 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Doesn't stop the states from making the underlying article of commerce itself illegal. (alcohol, pit bulls, rolling papers, etc.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5764208) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:25 PM Author: motley puppy Wrong. Ogden&Wagn#ractpwn#d. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765790) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 4:01 AM Author: angry contagious goal in life Explain it to me. That is Scalia's summary of the entire body of Supreme Court commerce clause doctrine. How is it not applicable?
You admit that growing, transporting, buying, and selling marijuana is interstate commerce. Scalia states that the commerce power gives Congress the ability to strike down any obstacles to that form of commerce. A law that criminalized marijuana would obstruct a law intended to facilitate the interestate commerece of marijuana. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:20 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant " A law that criminalized marijuana would obstruct a law intended to facilitate the interestate commerece of marijuana."
That's not what the case says now is it? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:34 PM Author: angry contagious goal in life It does. Any obstruction to legitimate interestate commerce can be struck down. We know from GIBBONS v. OGDEN that a state law can obstruct interstate commerce and be struck down. Any state law that obstructed Congress's intent to facilitate marijuana in intereststate commerce would be struck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765152) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:22 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Show me where it says an outright ban of the consumption is an obstruction to interstate commerce. Provide a cite. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766077) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:32 PM Author: indigo state prole how do you not understand the basic logic of it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765830) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:22 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Are you a lawyer, or in law school? No? Then GIT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766082) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 4:20 AM Author: indigo state prole why do you keep telling everyone to take con law? i mean, wouldn't it be more productive to just answer the q (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5763742) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:24 AM Author: histrionic aggressive orchestra pit Yo IPGunner.
How do the Feds outlaw racial discrimination under the commerce clause? |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 11:17 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Oulawing things is easy under the commerce clause. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5764747) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:33 PM Author: histrionic aggressive orchestra pit That shouldn't matter, the effect on interstate commerce should. In some cases it may make more sense to legalize something than to ban it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765150) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:26 PM Author: motley puppy so are there two different defintions for "interstate commerce" - one for outlawing things, and one for making things legal? If so, please provide one fucking case which says that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765797) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:24 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant You guys still don't get it.
This question wasn't pulled out of a hat. You keep digging yourselves in deeper.
Are you afraid that you can't change sides now because you've spent too much effort in fighting me, and all that effort would be for nothing?
That's called the sunk costs fallacy, look it up. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:26 AM Author: histrionic aggressive orchestra pit I really hope you're flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5764220) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:25 AM Author: Brass affirmative action Just stop it. I pwn3d you on the commerce clause point early in your first thread on this topic. You left all my answers to your questions hanging. Just bag this schtick. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5764219) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 11:18 AM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I've answered everything over and over. If you don't accept it that's your problem, but there's no point rehashing the same answers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5764755) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 12:32 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy You still haven't addressed the Wagner Act or why a ban isn't a regulation. Dipshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5765147) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:20 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Already cited to the Wagner act - see above. Doesn't force states to allow all unions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766066) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:28 PM Author: motley puppy Your logic is circular. You seem to think there are two different definitions of interestate commerce for making things legal and making things illegal. There aren't. But you keep this circular logic going.
Mere possession of pot is interstate commerce. See Raich.
Feds can ban things that interefere with interestate commerce, making such interestate commerce legal. Ogden. Wagner Act.
You lose.
Oh, and btw, foreign law does not mandate the supreme court, fucktard. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 6:29 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Some foreign law is binding precedent. Just look up the more than two centuries of case law on the 'law of nations' doctrine.
I'll give you a head start - look for Charming Betsy case. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 7:13 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant PS PWN3D!!!!! (again) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5767158) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 9:27 AM Author: Green excitant den Don't make me pull out my voodoo inherent emergency powers shit! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5764229) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 2:35 PM Author: motley puppy I am done with this thread. IPGUNNER is the biggest fucking retard I have ever witnessed on XO. Worse than &#, worse than pensive ever is, because at least those two are entertaining.
IPFLAMER, your circular logic is beyond pathetic. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 3:19 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I PWN3D you, learn to live with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766056) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 5:32 PM Author: indigo state prole fuck con law dood you might want to take a logic class (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766632) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant Do they offer a good one at the state college where you got your degree in criminal justice? Are you sure that wasn't a logic PUZZLES class offered through the extension school?
Show where I said something illogical. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 6:38 PM Author: Floppy idiotic messiness ladyboy hahaha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766956) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 6:41 PM Author: indigo state prole seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5766970) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 7:10 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I'm still waiting. Here's your big chance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5767131) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 7:11 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant How is my logic circular?
If all you can do is insult, and you can't refute my arguments, I win. |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 7:14 PM Author: Brass affirmative action If you think that "winning" is defined by authoring the terminal post in the thread, then you are sure to win. Have a good time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5767160) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2006 7:16 PM Author: mind-boggling fluffy legal warrant I'm waiting for someone to successfully rebut my arguments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#5767172) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 12:43 AM Author: lascivious black range ... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#6064656) |
|
Date: July 26th, 2006 10:28 PM Author: motley puppy where are thou IPGunner? Why have you forsaken us of your wisdom? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#6309502) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2007 12:24 AM Author: motley puppy I miss this shit. Seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#7892774) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2008 12:41 PM Author: lascivious black range (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=414494&forum_id=2#9925325) |