so, i'm not very versed on the constitution, bill of rights, and the amendments, nor my own state's history. but, i've heard that if the vote does pass in CA, the federal government will step in and say "no, no", because they represent the whole. so what if we were to pass it here in Texas? don't we have some sort of division from the rest of the states, or the whole, where the feds can't tell us what to do?
The thing about the constitution is that it can be amended to say, well, anything. You could add an amendment that says everyone is required to wear pink hats on Tuesdays. The original constitution does NOT mention drug laws or grant the federal government the right to enforce them. The bogus laws we have today were added on by very shady people and I don't even believe they are constitutional in the first place (conflicting with the right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty) But, do the feds have the power to tell us that we can't make our own drug laws? Not really. What can they do about it? Send the DEA in to start arresting everybody? They'd have to present the case to a jury, and no jury will convict people who weren't breaking any state laws.
People have been dumbed down. Healthcare was not the will of the people, it passed and we haven't seen massive protests. If there were the media wouldn't cover them so they would die in the water. This is the first youtube video I ever posted and I don't know how to embed it or if it will automatically do so. If it flube it up please forgive me. This is about the social conditioning that has taken place in this country. KGB Agent Tells You What The Illusion Is! (The REAL Illusion) [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaLwrcClAzg]YouTube - KGB Agent Tells You What The Illusion Is! (The REAL Illusion)[/ame]
No, we don't have the power to divide ourselves from the other states (regardless of what that fucknut Rick Perry says). The only kinda different thing Texas can do, is divide itself up into 5 smaller states..Not that it's ever going to happen, but still, its neat
The Civil War made sure that no state ever secede from the union (Which is actually the main reason for going to war, slavery wasn't high on the North's list in the beginning of the war.) If passed in ANY state, it will conflict with the U.S. Government's stance on marijuana. MOST likely, the U.S. Government and/or the DEA will take the state to the supreme court (States can sue each other as well as the federal government) and they can ultimately decide whether it is constitutional or not. Also, the State courts can have a look at the law to see if it is constitutional even with their own constitution, but I doubt the state/district courts will go against the will of the people, thats for the Supreme Court to decide.
if the government did do that. I say california should secede all states should secede to get what we want.
As WalkingStoner said, it comes down to Constitutionality, and how the Constitution is interpreted. If it were to be interpreted as the Founders meant it to be, the Federal govt would be way way WAY smaller than it is now. The States are supposed to have their sovereign rights, meaning rights guaranteed by the Constitution that the Feds can't touch. The Fed's power is explicitly listed in the Constitution. Anything not explicitly named as a power of the Fed is NOT supposed to be controlled by them. It lists things like taxing the people, coin money, etc (Art. I Sec. 8). There are also the Necessary and Proper and the Commerce clauses, and these are the two that have been bastardized over the years to let the Feds take way more power than they were intended to have. The Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress to enact laws that are "necessary and proper," to enforce the explicit powers. The Feds like to forget about that part in italics; they like to misinterpret it as any law "necessary and proper to control people how we want," or "necessary and proper to run the government." The Interstate Commerce clause gives the Feds powers over commerce (business/trade) that happen amongst different states. Again, lawmakers like to twist this one around or ignore all together. Having said that, the Constitution actually denies Congress the power to make laws like those which control drugs. There is NO mention of drugs or anything of the like, anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution says that anything not explicitly named (enumerated) as a power of the Fed is reserved to the States. This means that everything not listed in Art. I Sec. 8 is supposed to be up to the States, including drug control. This is only if the drugs stay in a particular state; if it crosses over a border, THEN the Feds have jurisdiction. Now if we're interpreting the Constitution as it should be interpreted, what the Federal govt says about our California (or Texas or any other state law) laws doesn't mean jack shit. The Feds can say, "No, no, we have ultimate power over everything you do," but in reality they have absolutely no basis to say so. While the Constitution is being used as toilet paper, though, as it is now, people will just stand by and let the Feds take over. About the ONLY hope we have is that the law will pass and go to court, and a judge who isn't a fucking idiot will uphold the law and find the Feds in violation of the Constitution in trying to overrule a Constitutionally GUARANTEED State right. With how things have been going, though, I really doubt that will happen. Best case scenario, the Feds will back the fuck off and let the people govern the people. This will happen right after Hitler starts handing out ice skates... From McCullough v. Maryland: "Although the court in McCulloch v. Maryland held that all Federal laws need not be "absolutely necessary" to be necessary and proper and noted "The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers," it also noted "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land." Whether various federal laws are necessary and proper exercises of Constitutional power or violations of Constitutional limits on federal power and whether the Supreme Court has ruled properly in cases where this question is at issue seems a constant matter of deep controversy." To me, the bolded part explicitly establishes the precedence that all of these laws that have since been written are in violation of "the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government," and are "not the law of the land." I haven't heard anything that disproves this argument yet....
Nope, texas is no different as far as i know. They are not exempt from the laws. If they had it their way they would be, but they are not.
How does it feel that the government owns you? People think they're so independant, such stand alones. No, we have owners, they make the rules, they play god.
no matter what, the federal governments laws always trump state laws. no matter what. california can legalize and everyone can smoke their weed, it would take a federal agent to step in and arrest you. its not like california will pass the law and the federal government will say no and the law wont pass. state cops i dont believe have the authority to arrest you for breaking federal laws, or at least not the obligation. all depends on how much the feds want to step in
As far as I know (and thats not much I don't know a lot about government) but I don't think the fed gov can just step in on a vote by the public people and say, "oh no that doesn't fly." Thats way too much control for them and the people would get real pissy. They can take the state to court or attempt to repeal the vote or ammend the constitution or whatever loophole they want to go through but I don't think they would. The government is on thin ice right now as it is. ha ha they don't want to go beyond their bounds.
well shit, not that all the conservatives here would let it ever happen but i thought if any could say fuck the feds, we could. does anyone think a big enough conflict about states rights would result in a war?
No, never... American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As far as if it would happen again, I think California would sooner sink into the ocean.
Honestly, the true ends-all arm of the government that can decide whether to allow it or not is the supreme court, not necessarily congress (unless they made it an ammendment, but we all know what happened last time they made a substance illegal that way ) There are three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. Legislative passes laws (Congress), executive carries out laws (president) and judicial sees that the law is constitutional and carried out correctly. Now, if California passes the law and the DEA (I doubt the attorney general will, but you never know) decides to sue the state of California, it will move through the district courts because the issue is highly complex (the will of the people want legalization, but its illegal at a federal level) and the supreme court ultimately decides, should it be legal in California or not? If not, that is a HUGE blow on the legalization front and those with optimistic views of legalization can forget it for a while... IF passed, than celebrate . Only way that Congress can invalidate what the Supreme Court says is through passing an Amendment, but I doubt they will take it that far. Once again if they do...legalization won't happen for ATLEAST decades to come. And that is how it will play out if Cali were to pass it and were taken to court.
Federal drug laws are unconstitutional, anyway, according to the 10th amendment. But that seems to be the amendment that everybody ignores these days.