• 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!

State verses Federal

crazyme

Banned
Joined
May 24, 2018
Messages
687
Reaction score
14
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The vast majority of states allow for limited use of medical marijuana under certain circumstances. Some medical marijuana laws are broader than others, with types of medical conditions that allow for treatment varying from state to state. Louisiana, West Virginia and a few other states allow only for cannabis-infused products, such as oils or pills. Other states have passed narrow laws allowing residents to possess cannabis only if they suffer from select rare medical illnesses.


Marijuana Legalization Status

Medical marijuana broadly legalized

Marijuana legalized for recreational use

No broad laws legalizing marijuana


State Marijuana Laws in 2018 Map


Marijuana prohibition began 80 years ago when the federal government put a ban on the sale, cultivation, and use of the cannabis plant. It remains illegal on the federal level.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/legal-marijuana-states-2018-1/



And so we have Federal Legality of same sex marriage but sometimes non State legalization. Same sex marriage has not become 'law', per se, by Congress... It has only become 'legal' on the Federal level.
 
Last edited:
You can get CBD and other products mailed to you in all 50 states.
 
And so we have Federal Legality of same-sex marriage but sometimes non State legalization. Same-sex marriage has not become 'law', per se, by Congress... It has only become 'legal' on the Federal level.

I'm confused. Do you have a question or a point to make here? You seem to be stating facts, but there's no context behind them. What is this thread about exactly?
 
I'm confused. Do you have a question or a point to make here? You seem to be stating facts, but there's no context behind them. What is this thread about exactly?

Perhaps, getting a coherent post together is difficult while (a bit?) stoned.
 
The Constitution of the United States defines what powers the federal government has. It specifically lists the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8.

Beyond that, the federal government has no authority or power. This is reiterated by the 9th and 10th amendments, which more clearly specify this concept.

The States retain all other powers, as they define in their own constitutions. If the State does not have authority in an area, then the people themselves retain that power.

It is the people of a State the write the constitution of that State and ordain it to be that States constitution. The people OWN the State's constitution.
Is it the States that write the Constitution of the United States and ordain it to be the federal Constitution. The States OWN the federal constitution.

No agent created by a constitution has the authority to modify their own constitution.

This means no State government can modify its own constitution, either through a legislature, a court, or a governor. Only the people of that State have that power.
It also means that the federal government cannot modify its own constitution, either through Congress, SCOTUS, or Presidental executive order. Only the States have that power, and through them, the people.

No authority was given the federal government to declare a particular substance 'illegal'. That power was never specified in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, that power falls to the States themselves. That means it is unconstitutional for the federal government to limit or make illegal pot, heroin, meth, carbon dioxide, a particular type of light bulb, a particular type of toilet, a particular type of gun, a particular type of toilet, etc. They do not have the authority. SCOTUS cannot give them that authority.

Similarly, the federal government was never given authority to define marriage, describe what is taught in schools, limit certain types of business, etc. They do not have the authority. SCOTUS cannot give them that authority.

These are powers reserved to the States, if their constitutions give them that authority. Otherwise, these are powers reserved to the people themselves.

This is the way the United States was founded. The further the government moves away from these principles, the closer to civil war we get.
 
The fact that each State governs their own State while being under Federal. Both State legalization of marijuana and Federal legalization of same sex marriage can be upheld by each State or non. Each State has their own authority to have jurisdiction to the members of that State, hence State laws. Marijuana is 'legal' in many States, State Jurisdictions, but it is illegal on the Federal Level. So the same with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is legal under Federal Jurisdiction but could be illegal in State Jurisdictions. Why? Because same sex marriage is not 'Law'. it is legalization, or allowance for States to choose if they want to participate or not. Something becoming 'legal' is an allowance or the possibility/availability/legality for States to participate in if they choose. Each State having their 'own' age of consent would be an example.

But keep in mind the legal procedures, fines, penalties with marriages and divorces and separations... which should also be kept lawful. Same sex marriages also need to go through the same divorce procedures as non same sex marriages. etc... as well as all monetary splits and ownership rights. Just as in heterosexual marriages there are those who marry for monies, so also there probably are within the same sex marriages.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/galtime/understanding-how-assets-_b_3441552.html

Dividing the family’s property during divorce can be quite difficult, especially if there are significant assets such as houses, rental property, retirement and pension plans, stock options, restricted stock, deferred compensation, brokerage accounts, closely-held businesses, professional practices and licenses, etc. Deciding who should get what can be quite a challenge, even under the most amenable of situations. But, if your divorce is contentious, then this can be especially complicated.

Assets should not necessarily be divided simply based on their current dollar value. You need to understand which assets will be best for your short- and long-term financial security. This is not always easy to discern without a thorough understanding of the asset itself — its liquidity, cost basis and any tax implications associated with its sale.

However, before we go any further, we need to discuss the differences between Separate and Marital Property and why that’s critically important to you. In my experience, this is an area that is not well understood by most people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that each State governs their own State while being under Federal. Both State legalization of marijuana and Federal legalization of same sex marriage can be upheld by each State or non. Each State has their own authority to have jurisdiction to the members of that State, hence State laws. Marijuana is 'legal' in many States, State Jurisdictions, but it is illegal on the Federal Level. So the same with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is legal under Federal Jurisdiction but could be illegal in State Jurisdictions. Why? Because same sex marriage is not 'Law'. it is legalization, or allowance for States to choose if they want to participate or not. Something becoming 'legal' is an allowance or the possibility/availability/legality for States to participate in if they choose. Each State having their 'own' age of consent would be an example.

But keep in mind the legal procedures, fines, penalties with marriages and divorces and separations... which should also be kept lawful. Same sex marriages also need to go through the same divorce procedures as non same sex marriages. etc... as well as all monetary splits and ownership rights. Just as in heterosexual marriages there are those who marry for monies, so also there probably are within the same sex marriages.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/galtime/understanding-how-assets-_b_3441552.html

Dividing the family’s property during divorce can be quite difficult, especially if there are significant assets such as houses, rental property, retirement and pension plans, stock options, restricted stock, deferred compensation, brokerage accounts, closely-held businesses, professional practices and licenses, etc. Deciding who should get what can be quite a challenge, even under the most amenable of situations. But, if your divorce is contentious, then this can be especially complicated.

Assets should not necessarily be divided simply based on their current dollar value. You need to understand which assets will be best for your short- and long-term financial security. This is not always easy to discern without a thorough understanding of the asset itself — its liquidity, cost basis and any tax implications associated with its sale.

However, before we go any further, we need to discuss the differences between Separate and Marital Property and why that’s critically important to you. In my experience, this is an area that is not well understood by most people.

States differ in some of the details, but generally speaking, Separate Property includes:

Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage;
An inheritance received by the husband or wife (either before or after the marriage);
A gift received by the husband or wife from a third party (your mother gave you her diamond ring);
Payment received for pain and suffering portion in a personal injury judgment
Warning: Separate property can lose its separate property status if you commingle it with marital property or vice versa. For example, if you re-title your separately owned condo by adding your husband as a co-owner or if you deposit the inheritance from your parents into a joint bank account with him, then that property will most likely now be considered marital property.

All other property that is acquired during the marriage is usually considered marital property regardless of which spouse owns the property or how the property is titled. Most people don’t understand this. I’ve had many clients tell me that they were not entitled to a specific asset, because it was titled in their husband’s name — such as his 401K. This is not true! This is worth repeating because it is that important. All property that is acquired during the marriage is usually considered marital property regardless of which spouse owns the property or how that property is titled.

The federal government can't legalize same sex marriage. They do not have authority to define a marriage at all. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States gave them that authority.

The States do have that authority.
 
The fact that each State governs their own State while being under Federal. Both State legalization of marijuana and Federal legalization of same sex marriage can be upheld by each State or non. Each State has their own authority to have jurisdiction to the members of that State, hence State laws. Marijuana is 'legal' in many States, State Jurisdictions, but it is illegal on the Federal Level. So the same with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is legal under Federal Jurisdiction but could be illegal in State Jurisdictions. Why? Because same sex marriage is not 'Law'. it is legalization, or allowance for States to choose if they want to participate or not. Something becoming 'legal' is an allowance or the possibility/availability/legality for States to participate in if they choose. Each State having their 'own' age of consent would be an example.

But keep in mind the legal procedures, fines, penalties with marriages and divorces and separations... which should also be kept lawful. Same sex marriages also need to go through the same divorce procedures as non same sex marriages. etc... as well as all monetary splits and ownership rights. Just as in heterosexual marriages there are those who marry for monies, so also there probably are within the same sex marriages.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/galtime/understanding-how-assets-_b_3441552.html

Dividing the family’s property during divorce can be quite difficult, especially if there are significant assets such as houses, rental property, retirement and pension plans, stock options, restricted stock, deferred compensation, brokerage accounts, closely-held businesses, professional practices and licenses, etc. Deciding who should get what can be quite a challenge, even under the most amenable of situations. But, if your divorce is contentious, then this can be especially complicated.

Assets should not necessarily be divided simply based on their current dollar value. You need to understand which assets will be best for your short- and long-term financial security. This is not always easy to discern without a thorough understanding of the asset itself — its liquidity, cost basis and any tax implications associated with its sale.

However, before we go any further, we need to discuss the differences between Separate and Marital Property and why that’s critically important to you. In my experience, this is an area that is not well understood by most people.



9a. Fair-Use - A limitation of two (2) medium-sized paragraphs per thread is allowed for the quoting and display of any external "same-source" material. Same-source material is considered to be material borrowed from the same author, the same internet article, the same web page, the same web site, or the same publication. Please do not exceed this limitation, nor attempt to bypass this limitation via consecutive/subsequent/plagiarized thread postings. Proper format is to Copy & Paste a maximum of two medium-sized paragraphs of same-source material and offer a link to the material source page for further reading. Moderator discretion shall prevail here.


Nice.. thanks for this... I was completely unaware.. it actually makes my life easier... LOL
 
The Constitution of the United States defines what powers the federal government has. It specifically lists the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8.

Beyond that, the federal government has no authority or power. This is reiterated by the 9th and 10th amendments, which more clearly specify this concept.

The States retain all other powers, as they define in their own constitutions. If the State does not have authority in an area, then the people themselves retain that power.

It is the people of a State the write the constitution of that State and ordain it to be that States constitution. The people OWN the State's constitution.
Is it the States that write the Constitution of the United States and ordain it to be the federal Constitution. The States OWN the federal constitution.

No agent created by a constitution has the authority to modify their own constitution.

This means no State government can modify its own constitution, either through a legislature, a court, or a governor. Only the people of that State have that power.
It also means that the federal government cannot modify its own constitution, either through Congress, SCOTUS, or Presidental executive order. Only the States have that power, and through them, the people.

No authority was given the federal government to declare a particular substance 'illegal'. That power was never specified in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, that power falls to the States themselves. That means it is unconstitutional for the federal government to limit or make illegal pot, heroin, meth, carbon dioxide, a particular type of light bulb, a particular type of toilet, a particular type of gun, a particular type of toilet, etc. They do not have the authority. SCOTUS cannot give them that authority.

Similarly, the federal government was never given authority to define marriage, describe what is taught in schools, limit certain types of business, etc. They do not have the authority. SCOTUS cannot give them that authority.

These are powers reserved to the States, if their constitutions give them that authority. Otherwise, these are powers reserved to the people themselves.

This is the way the United States was founded. The further the government moves away from these principles, the closer to civil war we get.

This was very well said, however, even though States are free to establish their own Constitution that Constitution must be within the frame work of the Constitution of the United States. The States drew up a compact or contract that established the Federal Government, and therefore are bound by this contract as is the federal government. Any Territory that is admitted into the Union as a State must agree to this compact. The Supremacy Clause grants the federal government power to enact laws that are "in pursuance thereof" as laws of the land.

As in the case of marriage, true, there is no federal laws that deal with marriage, however, there are State laws that deal with marriage and the disposition of property of a married couple and benefits as related to a married couple. I believe this is where the SCOTUS based their decision on the matter of same sex marriage. Under the 14th amendment all citizens of the United States are granted equal protection under the law, regardless if it is federal or state laws. What this means is that a State has no right to deny any citizen equal protection under the law. Now if a State had no laws dealing with marriage then this would become a non issue.
 
I'm confused. Do you have a question or a point to make here? You seem to be stating facts, but there's no context behind them. What is this thread about exactly?

Check out his posts. They're always like this. In fact, he'll keep on responding to himself with the same strange format until someone else joins in. He may be AI, or his name may be apt, but something is off.
 
This was very well said, however, even though States are free to establish their own Constitution that Constitution must be within the frame work of the Constitution of the United States.
Only certain limited portions of the Constitution of the United States applies to the States themselves. One of them is that the States must enact a republic form of government (i.e. based on a constitution). Things like the 1st amendment does NOT apply to the States. Neither does most of Article 1, none of Article 2, and small portion of Article 3.
The States drew up a compact or contract that established the Federal Government, and therefore are bound by this contract as is the federal government.
The difference is that the States own the contract. The federal government doesn't.
Any Territory that is admitted into the Union as a State must agree to this compact.
True. What they must agree to is much less than what you think, however.
The Supremacy Clause grants the federal government power to enact laws that are "in pursuance thereof" as laws of the land.
The Supremacy clause does not destroy the sovereignty of any State. No State would agree to such a compact.
As in the case of marriage, true, there is no federal laws that deal with marriage, however, there are State laws that deal with marriage and the disposition of property of a married couple and benefits as related to a married couple. I believe this is where the SCOTUS based their decision on the matter of same sex marriage.
SCOTUS attempted to change the constitution of a State. They are no authorized to do this.
Under the 14th amendment all citizens of the United States are granted equal protection under the law, regardless if it is federal or state laws.
They WERE granted equal protection of the law. Marriage was defined by that State as between a man and a women. The law equally applied to all legal marriages performed in that State and by that State's authority.
What this means is that a State has no right to deny any citizen equal protection under the law.
They weren't.
Now if a State had no laws dealing with marriage then this would become a non issue.
WRONG. The law applies equally to all legal marriages. It is a non-issue. A same sex 'marriage' was not a legal marriage. It is also incapable of producing offspring.
 
Back
Top Bottom