• 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!

John Bolton Another Constitution Ignoramus

Crovax said:
I already have, read post #7
Click to expand...

On the contrary! You only claim such authority is in Article Two. It's not in my copy of the Constitution. So, post it for me.
 
joG said:
Maybe you know what argument he made for his opinion?
Click to expand...

The only thing I think he could possible be referencing would be the supremacy clause. But that doesn't render state laws unconstitutional.
 
TheHammer said:
On the contrary! You only claim such authority is in Article Two. It's not in my copy of the Constitution. So, post it for me.
Click to expand...

The power to make treaties isn't not in your copy of the Constitution? Either you are illiterate or you are trolling

Like I said I have already pointed it out in post #7

Crovax said:
Our marijuana laws come as a result of treaties, specifically the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Convention on Psychotropic Substances and United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

and the congress has the power to make laws in accordance with our treaties and federal laws have supremacy over state laws.

When Scalia was asked about state drug laws he said "I’m not going to respond to that because it would force me to have to recuse myself”... “but the Constitution contains something called the Supremacy Clause”
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
The only thing I think he could possible be referencing would be the supremacy clause. But that doesn't render state laws unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It does if it contradicts federal law, Scalia has said as much about them
 
Crovax said:
It does if it contradicts federal law, Scalia has said as much about them
Click to expand...

The way I had understood it is that states could have their laws but the federal law can override it. Like the way pot has been handled for a while now where states legalize the farming but the DEA can come in and raid it whenever they feel like it.
 
Crovax said:
Our marijuana laws come as a result of treaties, specifically the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Convention on Psychotropic Substances and United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

and the congress has the power to make laws in accordance with our treaties and federal laws have supremacy over state laws.

When Scalia was asked about state drug laws he said "I’m not going to respond to that because it would force me to have to recuse myself”... “but the Constitution contains something called the Supremacy Clause”
Click to expand...

Point taken.

From what I read it's not clear that article 36 of the convention mandates that possession be criminalized but it does criminalize cultivation.

So we'd have to exit the treaty to abolish Federal marijuana prohibition laws. That's not likely. There are as I understand reclassification mechanisms built into the convention but I have no idea how hard it is to use them.
 
Gaius46 said:
Point taken.

From what I read it's not clear that article 36 of the convention mandates that possession be criminalized but it does criminalize cultivation.

So we'd have to exit the treaty to abolish Federal marijuana prohibition laws. That's not likely. There are as I understand reclassification mechanisms built into the convention but I have no idea how hard it is to use them.
Click to expand...

If that's what it takes then that is what we need to do.

Individual liberty is more important than nanny-state ideology.

People should be allowed to do what they will as long as they don't harm the person's or property of others.

It they do, then they must be held accountable without recourse to "I didn't mean to!"

Punishment for actual harm should be the rule, not "a s**t-ton of prevention is worth a pound of cure" ideology which has created our recidivist criminal drug sub-culture.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If that's what it takes then that is what we need to do.

Individual liberty is more important than nanny-state ideology.

People should be allowed to do what they will as long as they don't harm the person's or property of others.

It they do, then they must be held accountable without recourse to "I didn't mean to!"

Punishment for actual harm should be the rule, not "a s**t-ton of prevention is worth a pound of cure" ideology which has created our recidivist criminal drug sub-culture.
Click to expand...

No argument from me at all.
 
TheHammer said:
Since you agree with Bolton, then you can explain why the feds decided to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol and point to the Constitution's article and or amendment authorizing the feds to ignore amendment 10 and prohibit some drugs.
Click to expand...

That is, indeed, a very good question (point of law?). I have already stated that I don't know the limits of federal power in this area. Here are two simiiar federal "substance control acts" that have yet to be successfully overturned on constitutional grounds:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_of_1976

If the 10A does not bar education as a cabinet level federal power then it appears that enumeration is not very important and can simply be ignored as a constitutional requirement for federal power. My best guess is that if there can be unnamed civil rights under the constitution then there can also be unnamed civil wrongs.
 
TheHammer said:
What part of the Constitution forces the States to obey Federal "Unconstitutional Laws?"
Click to expand...

The State(s) is allegedly who passed the unconstitutional law(s) ... they were not Federal Laws.
Isn't that what Bolton was saying?
What would make such State Laws in violation of the US Constitution is that they would allow and even enable activities that violate the Federal Law (CSA).
(That's why I said it sounded an awful lot like the Sanctuary City kerfuffle.)
Which is not to say the States in question can be compelled to enforce that Federal Law ... they just can't pass Laws that violate that Federal Law.
Sounds funky, I know, but I believe that's already been established by more than one Court.
 
poweRob said:
The only thing I think he could possible be referencing would be the supremacy clause. But that doesn't render state laws unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.
And if that's all Bolton was saying, he's probably right.
If he went on to say that State actions taken in furtherance of the pot industry (e.g.like issuing licenses) would be void, he's right about that too.
But if he said the Federal Government could force State Government to enforce the Federal Law, then he'd be wrong.

I believe that's pretty accurate.
 
Crovax said:
The power to make treaties isn't not in your copy of the Constitution? Either you are illiterate or you are trolling

Like I said I have already pointed it out in post #7
Click to expand...

What treaty authorizes the feds to institute prohibition of some drugs without a constitutional amendment like the Congress found necessary in 1919 to institute prohibition of alcohol? Explain the double standard.
 
I'm still waiting for the explanation here by somebody as to why the feds in 1919 found it necessary to amend the Constitution to institute the prohibition of alcohol, but no such amendment exist today for the institution of the prohibition of some drugs, and exactly what Treaty was approved by 2/3 of the Senate to override the constitutional amendment process and ignore amendment 10 as it relates to prohibition of some drugs?
 
TheHammer said:
John Bolton one of the candidates on the Trump short list for Secretary Of State, said today on the Fox News program “Out Numbered,” He thinks that all of the States laws that legalize marijuana are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

They are as long as you believe that federal law trumps state law. They aren't if you believe that prohibition is unconstitutional. The point is that there are differences of opinion. That doesn't make him an ignoramus. It just makes him disagree with you.
 
fmw said:
They are as long as you believe that federal law trumps state law. They aren't if you believe that prohibition is unconstitutional. The point is that there are differences of opinion. That doesn't make him an ignoramus. It just makes him disagree with you.
Click to expand...

I repeat, I'm still waiting for the explanation here by somebody as to why the feds in 1919 found it necessary to amend the Constitution to institute the prohibition of alcohol, but no such amendment exist today for the institution of the prohibition of some drugs, and exactly what Treaty was approved by 2/3 of the Senate to override the constitutional amendment process and ignore amendment 10 as it relates to prohibition of some drugs?
 
TheHammer said:
I repeat, I'm still waiting for the explanation here by somebody as to why the feds in 1919 found it necessary to amend the Constitution to institute the prohibition of alcohol, but no such amendment exist today for the institution of the prohibition of some drugs, and exactly what Treaty was approved by 2/3 of the Senate to override the constitutional amendment process and ignore amendment 10 as it relates to prohibition of some drugs?
Click to expand...

One assumes that there are differences of opinion. A prohibition of recreational drugs would never fly because it failed in the 1920's. Nevertheless, those in government dedicated to power and control think they should protect people from themselves. I don't think protecting people from themselves is an appropriate goal for government. It should concentrate on protecting people from other people. Most people disagree with me however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom