• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fight on border steps up.......

Smurf

Smurf

New member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
21
Reaction score
2
Location
Asheboro N.C.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
WASHINGTON – Hundreds of federal agents, along with high-tech surveillance gear and drug-sniffing dogs, are headed to the Southwest to help Mexico fight drug cartels and keep violence from spilling across the U.S.-Mexico border, Obama administration officials said Tuesday.
The border security initiative, which expands on efforts begun during the Bush administration, is aimed at drug traffickers who have wreaked havoc in Mexico in recent years and are blamed for a spate of kidnappings and home invasions in some U.S. cities.
Click to expand...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/...order_violence
 
The US and Mexican governments could completely end the violence in one month with a stroke of a pen. Congress can legalize all drugs and/or the Attorney General can stop enforcing the drug laws that we have. The Mexicans could do the same...as they tried to a few years ago, before intense pressure from the Bush Administration made them back down.
 
I think the next best thing would be to legalize drugs in the border States, and give the finger to the Federal Government. The DEA will of course have the authority to conduct its usual raids and what not, but a State wide legalization campaign would be the first to undermine the unsustainable Federal policy.

Given the Conservative nature of the border states though, I doubt any kind of legalization is likely to happen. The war on drugs will continue in order to save face, wasting billions and causing death in the process.

I wish Mexico had the nerve to stand up to the U.S. like it did previously with its near attempt at cannabis legalization.
 
Rodney said:
No One gives a **** about this . No one gives a **** about much ! You care only about your own sweet ass.;) Truth...
Click to expand...



Internet Rambo eh?
Jesus they're EVERYWHERE!
 
Orius said:
I think the next best thing would be to legalize drugs in the border States, and give the finger to the Federal Government. The DEA will of course have the authority to conduct its usual raids and what not, but a State wide legalization campaign would be the first to undermine the unsustainable Federal policy.

Given the Conservative nature of the border states though, I doubt any kind of legalization is likely to happen. The war on drugs will continue in order to save face, wasting billions and causing death in the process.

I wish Mexico had the nerve to stand up to the U.S. like it did previously with its near attempt at cannabis legalization.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be for legalizing all drugs but I would not have a problem with legalizing marijuana.

And I don't understand why states that do want to end marijuana prohibition don't just do it and use their own guards to block DEA raids.
 
jallman said:
.
And I don't understand why states that do want to end marijuana prohibition don't just do it and use their own guards to block DEA raids.
Click to expand...
Because the states dont have the power to keep the federal government from enforcing federal law?
 
Goobieman said:
Because the states dont have the power to keep the federal government from enforcing federal law?
Click to expand...

They have every right to stop the feds from interfering in those rights of the state that are not specifically enumerated as belonging to the fed in the constitution.

I thought you were a conservative and understood state's rights. :confused:
 
jallman said:
I wouldn't be for legalizing all drugs but I would not have a problem with legalizing marijuana.

And I don't understand why states that do want to end marijuana prohibition don't just do it and use their own guards to block DEA raids.
Click to expand...

Well, Mexico has a burgeoning heroin manufacture/trade network, a methamphetamine manufacture/trade network, and a cocaine wholesaling network. What makes you think the growers in Mexico wont just switch to other drugs? These aren't your local stoners.
 
jallman said:
They have every right to stop the feds from interfering in those rights of the state that are not specifically enumerated as belonging to the fed in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Supremacy clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the 10th amendment allows a state to stop the fed gvmnt from enforcing federal law.
 
Goobieman said:
Supremacy clause.



Nothing in the 10th amendment allows a state to stop the fed gvmnt from enforcing federal law.
Click to expand...

Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal Government has no place restricting intrastate trade anyway.
 
BulletWounD said:
Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal Government has no place restricting intrastate trade anyway.
Click to expand...
You can argue that all you want, but THAT issue has ben settled for some time.
 
Goobieman said:
You can argue that all you want, but THAT issue has ben settled for some time.
Click to expand...

Until it's overturned, as Clarence Thomas alluded to in a relatively recent court case.
 
BulletWounD said:
Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal Government has no place restricting intrastate trade anyway.
Click to expand...

Goobie has quite a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the law in general.

It's anymore productive arguing with him than it is arguing with any other extreme leftist around here. He might call himself a conservative but he is anything but conservative. He mostly takes a knee-jerk response that he figures will put him in line with Pat Robertson or Anne "the man" Coulter and then makes up his arguments from there.

Now as to your point, I don't think this even becomes an issue of intrastate trade. It's simply a matter of prohibition not existing in one state versus another. If the feds want to regulate traffic of prohibited material from one state to another, that's fine with me. But the DEA raiding marijuana points of sale in California when the people of California have made it clear that they don't want prohibition of marijuana is a whole different animal.
 
Last edited:
BulletWounD said:
Until it's overturned, as Clarence Thomas alluded to in a relatively recent court case.
Click to expand...

And in any event...
Nothing in the 10th amendment allows a state to stop the fed gvmnt from enforcing federal law.
 
jallman said:
Goobie has quite a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the law in general.
Click to expand...
Rather than whining to BW, why dont you just tell me how I am wrong?
 
Goobieman said:
Because the states don't have the power to keep the federal government from enforcing federal law?
Click to expand...



EXACTLY!!
Anyone remember that little piece of history called the Civil War?
State law CAN NOT supersede Federal law. This was decided in 1865. If states could over ride Federal law then Federal law would carry no weight since a state could simply over ride it.
 
Smurf said:
EXACTLY!!
Anyone remember that little piece of history called the Civil War?
State law CAN NOT supersede Federal law. This was decided in 1865. If states could over ride Federal law then Federal law would carry no weight since a state could simply over ride it.
Click to expand...

Interstate Commerce Clause said:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Click to expand...

10th Amendment said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. The misinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to include intrastate commerce is one of the chief culprits of the usurpation of power by the Federal Government which so-called "conservatives" complain about so much.
 
BulletWounD said:
The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Click to expand...
Yes. This means a state cannot stop the fed gvmnt from enforcing federal law within its borders.

The misinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to include intrastate commerce ...
Click to expand...
This addresses the validity of law itself, not the power to enforce that law.
Thus, it is a seperate issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom