• 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!

Calif. voters to decide whether to legalize pot

Goshin said:
Have I lost my mind, or is GOOBIEMAN arguing in favor of federal power over state power? IN favor of an expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause rather than against it?

I must be smoking crack, that's the only explanation. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I'm not at all sure why you are astounnded or confused. Maybe you arent familiar with federalism?

Its not at all hard to see how the federal government can make something illegal while a state does not.

For instance, while Ohio did not have an 'assault weapon' ban 1994-2004, there was still a federal ban, and so any such illegal activities that took place in Ohio during that period were still illegal under federal law.

Of course, The Obama has decreed that His DoJ will not enforce the federal ban on MJ in states that do not have a similar ban, which has made some people rather happy. I wonder what those would have thought if GWB decided to not enforce the AWB in states that had no similar ban.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm not at all sure why you are astounnded or confused. Maybe you arent familiar with federalism?

Its not at all hard to see how the federal government can make something illegal while a state does not.

For instance, while Ohio did not have an 'assault weapon' ban 1994-2004, there was still a federal ban, and so any such illegal activities that took place in Ohio during that period were still illegal under federal law.

Of course, The Obama has decreed that His DoJ will not enforce the federal ban on MJ in states that do not have a similar ban, which has made some people rather happy. I wonder what those would have thought if GWB decided to not enforce the AWB in states that had no similar ban.
Click to expand...



Goobie... while bearing in mind that alcohol Prohibition required a Amendment to the Constitution (back in the days when we still concerned ourselves with Constitutionality), please point out to me in the Constitution where the Fedgov has the power to ban a substance that is only to be produced and sold within a state.

"Commerce clause" just won't fly, not if the substance is legal only to produce and consume within the state in question, and is unlawful to export to another state.

(BTW, I don't believe the Fedgov had any Constitutional authority to do the AWB either.)
 
Goshin said:
please point out to me in the Constitution where the Fedgov has the power to ban a substance that is only to be produced and sold within a state.

"Commerce clause" just won't fly, not if the substance is legal only to produce and consume within the state in question, and is unlawful to export to another state.

(BTW, I don't believe the Fedgov had any Constitutional authority to do the AWB either.)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the commerce clause does apply (Wickard v. Filburn):

"But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.' "

I don't agree with it, but it's one example of how the commerce clause has been abused.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Unfortunately, the commerce clause does apply (Wickard v. Filburn):

"But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.' "

I don't agree with it, but it's one example of how the commerce clause has been abused.
Click to expand...

That's ****ed up.

Of course, one must ask if it applies to illegal commerce....smuggling.
 
Goshin said:
Goobie... while bearing in mind that alcohol Prohibition required a Amendment to the Constitution (back in the days when we still concerned ourselves with Constitutionality), please point out to me in the Constitution where the Fedgov has the power to ban a substance that is only to be produced and sold within a state.
Click to expand...
I have already done this.
Intra-state commerce that affects interstate commerce. Its settled law.

Dont blame me, blame FDR -- it was his court that established it.
See: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
 
reefedjib said:
That's ****ed up.

Of course, one must ask if it applies to illegal commerce....smuggling.
Click to expand...
The point is that it gives the power to make the commerce illegal in the first place.

And yes, it is fu-ed up -- but, like I said, blame FDR.
 
Goobieman said:
I have already done this.
Intra-state commerce that affects interstate commerce. Its settled law.

Dont blame me, blame FDR -- it was his court that established it.
See: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Click to expand...


So, do you support this misapplication of the commerce clause?

Some things are "Settled law" that I still disagree with.
 
Goobieman said:
Of course, The Obama has decreed that His DoJ will not enforce the federal ban on MJ in states that do not have a similar ban, which has made some people rather happy. I wonder what those would have thought if GWB decided to not enforce the AWB in states that had no similar ban.
Click to expand...

If Bush hadn't enforced the assault weapons ban I would actually be happy with him for once. Real liberals (like myself) believe issues like these are left to the states to decide. I'll even go as far as saying I would like to see such laws against Marijuana and weapons removed from the books.
 
Phantom said:
If Bush hadn't enforced the assault weapons ban I would actually be happy with him for once. Real liberals (like myself) believe issues like these are left to the states to decide. I'll even go as far as saying I would like to see such laws against Marijuana and weapons removed from the books.
Click to expand...

This is wrong because the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, its apart of the bill of rights. The 10th Amendment does not come into play here.
 
Goshin said:
So, do you support this misapplication of the commerce clause?
Some things are "Settled law" that I still disagree with.
Click to expand...
I am not fully sure that it is fully a mis-application of the clause, but I do believe that it certainly goes too far.

But, that's not the point. The point is that the law says what it says.
 
Phantom said:
If Bush hadn't enforced the assault weapons ban I would actually be happy with him for once. Real liberals (like myself) believe issues like these are left to the states to decide. I'll even go as far as saying I would like to see such laws against Marijuana and weapons removed from the books.
Click to expand...
Understanding, of course, that the BoR applies to actions by the states, thru the 14th amendment.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on that. It is already impossible to watch a Superbowl for more than half an hour without seeing a Bud Light commercial. And, from cirrhosis of the liver to drunk driving accidents, alcohol wins, hands down, where it comes to people dying.
 
danarhea said:
I have mixed feelings on that. It is already impossible to watch a Superbowl for more than half an hour without seeing a Bud Light commercial. And, from cirrhosis of the liver to drunk driving accidents, alcohol wins, hands down, where it comes to people dying.
Click to expand...
I'm saying advertising shouldn't be allowed, like tobacco.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I'm saying advertising shouldn't be allowed, like tobacco.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If a company wants to advertise alcohol, tobacco, or even weed on TV, it should be able to do so.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. If a company wants to advertise alcohol, tobacco, or even weed on TV, it should be able to do so.
Click to expand...
Aww come on, I was just trying to throw the drug fascists a bone! :2razz:
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. If a company wants to advertise alcohol, tobacco, or even weed on TV, it should be able to do so.
Click to expand...

"Tastes great! Less filling!"
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. If a company wants to advertise alcohol, tobacco, or even weed on TV, it should be able to do so.
Click to expand...
Freedom and liberty don't mean you can do things that harm the society from which you derive those freedoms and liberties. Because then you would end up losing those freedoms and liberties.
 
Everyone who is going to vote in favor of it is a pot smoker. All non-smokers are against marijuana being legalized.
 
sonofogre said:
Everyone who is going to vote in favor of it is a pot smoker. All non-smokers are against marijuana being legalized.
Click to expand...

can't agree with that bold conclusion
i would think anyone who is opposed to victimless crimes being prosecuted, or allocating limited taxpayer resources to the capture, trial and imprisonment of pot "criminals" would have sound basis to end laws criminalizing its possession
 
You can't polish a turd...
Click to expand...

Actually, you can. Proven on Mythbusters.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
Those that understand binary and those that do not.
 
justabubba said:
can't agree with that bold conclusion
i would think anyone who is opposed to victimless crimes being prosecuted, or allocating limited taxpayer resources to the capture, trial and imprisonment of pot "criminals" would have sound basis to end laws criminalizing its possession
Click to expand...

I would think anyone like that would be a stoner.
 
Goobieman said:
Actually, you can. Proven on Mythbusters.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
Those that understand binary and those that do not.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt that read "there are 01 kinds of people..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom