The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: tinybear OK, but you think anyone who wilfully takes the life of another should be punished?

Obviously.

[tinybear]

Read this story at your leisure and tell me what you think. Take your time.

http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html

[Lou Minotti]

Why not just state your points instead of just trying to bait everybody all the time?

[tinybear]

Why not read the story first before throwing wild accusations?

[Lou Minotti]

Nothing wild about facts...Please make a point. You want to discuss this in another thread, by all means.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear No law can ever be perfect or even near pefect, including the Constitution. Why do you think it had to be amended from time to time?

The constitution is near perfect, in my opinion. "Near perfect", hence the amendments.

Quote by: tinybear You haven't expressed a view on what you think about a law which provides that he who wilfully takes the life of another shall be punished by death, by the way. Still thinking about it?

Don't derail this thread. If you want to discuss the death penalty, start a new thread.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear The Courts have to hand down a ruling or judgment to that effect first though. You don't ignore a law duly passed by Congress simply because you think it's unconstitutional.

I have already corrected you in this same thread, about the same little fact you can't seem to wrap your mind around. Congress has never made drugs illegal in a constitutional manner. The FDA, DEA, ATF, and all the other three letter agencies only exist by Executive Order of the President under the War, and Emergency Powers Act.


These laws conflict with the constitution, and are unconstitutional in every way. Link ----> http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

[tinybear]

Why hasn't the US Supreme Court said so? Once it does, such drug laws as are unconstitutional will be declared invalid and struck off the statute book. Until that happens they remain in force. Who are we (private citizens) to say they are not valid and should be ignored?

[Waychel]

I don't know where your information is from, but I believe either it or your interpretation to be incorrect. The right to regulate commerce and trade is an enumerated power retained by our government within the Commerce Clause of the constitution.

"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."

What this means is that if a power is delegated to the United States (federal government) by the constitution, then the United States adopts legislation in the exercise of that power. Assuming that federal regulation does not entirely occupy the field, it is ONLY THEN that the tenth amendment awards some degree of state regulation to be permitted "by the people" -- provided that it does not conflict with the federal regulation. However, one of those "powers" happens to be Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the government owns claim to "the regulation of commerce with foreign Nations, among the States of the union, and with Indian Tribes."

Commerce power is frequently cited as allowing the federal regulation of goods traded in interstate commerce; Marijuana being no exception to this. Also worth mentioning is that under the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, in the event of a conflict between state and federal law, the federal regulation will prevail. So, even if a state were to legalize marijuana, the government's word -- not the people's -- would be the final say in the matter.

[tinybear]

I thought our government is one "of the people and for the people". But I suspect that the majority of the American people would like to see drugs continue being banned. I mean, you'd think otherwise if you're a member of the Volconvo community, but I don't think the majority view here reflects that of the American people. I have no statistics to support my surmise though. It's my gut feeling and nothing more. :p

Hey Waychel, have a look at the article I posted here earlier and tell me what you think. Actually I could start a separate thread based on it. Maybe I should. Heh! :)

[Osborn F Enready]

Waychel said:
What this means is that if a power is delegated to the United States (federal government) by the constitution, then the United States adopts legislation in the exercise of that power.

I say:
Waychel, where did the Constitution get its power from?

Who created and granted the authority to the government, and who funds it?

Whose name does the government act in?

If the above answers are the obvious, only answer (the citizens of the colonies, that became the United States), then that means the people have the power to remove any law it votes to remove. The Executive, Legislative, Judicial branch are all ONLY empowered by the people, and every ounce of authority they have is up to one vote of the people, if it is put to ballot. ( Or revolution, should need be, which the forefathers knew was a possibility from personal experience. )

The problem is, in the corrupt system that we have now, the process and feasibility of putting every item of the system under that scrutiny and education before holding a vote would take decades. The people have the RIGHT, and ABILITY to remove any law they choose, if it CAN be put on the ballot. The process for doing this in this time, due to public mis-information, is almost impossible without HUGE amounts of liquid cash, or well followed activist organizations.

Why is there no accessible channel for public redress of grievance?

Why are our prisons being filled with non-violent drug offenders who are in the most overwhelming percentage marijuana SMOKERS or GROWERS (not dealers) when the laws, the PROVEN FALSE information of the drug, the classification of the drug, and the public opinion is enough to provoke states to push acceptance of medical marijuana only to have their CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED, states rights ignored?

I would love to hear your thoughts on those issues, and answers to those questions.

[Waychel]

When you lead a coup d'etat against the government and remove Article 1 from the constitution (including the Supremecy Clause and the Commerce Clause) then get back to me on that. Until then, drugs are not only contraband, but it is the government's constitutional right to make them so.

[Osborn F Enready]

Waychel, you are totally dismissing common sense and logic with that reply.

Those were direct questions, complex questions that are the basis of this nations foundations and law system. Don't like the answers, or don't want to contradict yourself?

[Waychel]

I hardly see how I am dismissing common sense or logic. I believe my interpretation of the law to be correct and if that is indeed the case, then so are my statements on the matter.

[tinybear]

Waychel> In my short time here, I've noticed that many members of this community hold the view that it doesn't matter what the law says. As long as they hold the view that the law is not right, it can be ignored. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Waychel]

This is true, unfortunately. However, I don't see how the posts I have made on commerce are illogical when they were correcting fallacious statements which were made about what the law said in the first place. *shrug*

[Osborn F Enready]

Waychel, where did the Constitution get its power from?

Who created and granted the authority to the government, and who funds it?

Whose name does the government act in?

The people have the ultimate power in vote. (assuming obviously its legitimate, but thats another issue) If laws are creating citizen skepticism, disregard and scorn in large numbers of population, it needs to be put to popular vote, to decide if the bills were passed to law without public conscent, on the misguided views of their representatives. (prohibition of alchohol, the essential creation of the black market, public outcry and blatant disrespect of the laws concerning alchohol, much as with drug laws, especially marijuana laws.)

In essence I am saying that regardless of what is written about commerce, the government serves the people. If the laws are harming the people, or the will of the people more than they help, it is essentially a dis-service, regardless the noble intent. The State, and the people, have the right to popular vote, as much as our forefathers had the right to Independence. California and other States rights have been rendered moot, as are the individuals more each day.

Laws only mean something, if they are respected by the overwhelming majority, and reasonably enforceable. We are finding how feeble our attempts have been in regulating human craving or desire, again.

What is the purpose in keeping records of history, if you do not learn from its obvious lessons?

[tinybear]

What's the use of having any laws when it can be overturned or disobeyed by anyone who claims that 'the majority of the people' don't like it? Well, following from this logic, if the 'majority of the people' don't like gay marriage, does that mean gay marriages stay unrecognized by the law?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear What's the use of having any laws when it can be overturned or disobeyed by anyone who claims that 'the majority of the people' don't like it? Well, following from this logic, if the 'majority of the people' don't like gay marriage, does that mean gay marriages stay unrecognized by the law?

This is not about majority opinion. As a matter of fact, the Executive Order made it all about one persons opinion, and that is why there is controversy about this issue. If the laws had been passed according o the constitution, the legitamate, legal way to pass laws, then there would be little to argue about.


You seem incapable of understanding that we were wronged first. If the law did not emminate from Congress, than it is not law at all, its fairytale.


As long as the government can operate with impunity, while swearing to uphold, and defend our rights, than I will refuse to follow any unconstitutional dictates that they claim are laws.


With constitutional government, there would be room for dissent, and there would be places within our borders to seek asylum from local laws one does not agree with. With a Federal mandate on everything under the Sun, there is no room for dissent, and no room for those who honor the constitution.


Therefore, they are treasonous assholes, and I am an unrecognized patriot who has to explain my actions every time I turn around. That is what is wrong with our government is operating now.


The part that scares me the most is the group mentality of the soundbite regurgitators. They are always to hapy to jump on the bandwagon, and group hate anybody different from themselves. Come to think of it, isn't that the biggest critisism anybody has about the Nazi's, their intolerance of others who not the master race.


Now you see why som of us are constantly drawing paralells between Nazi Germany, and Corporate America. They hold many of thhe same ideals dear.

[RickSp]

In the eighteenth century, the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure" was reasonably clear. Two hundred plus years later, it isn't quite so clear. Is a car driving on a public road included in one's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?" The example of being able to observe the drugs from outside the car, is a good one. If it is OK for a policemen to look through the window, is it illegal for a trained dog to sniff the air?

The unstated issue related to "unreasonable seizure" of one's personal "effects" is what possible rational justification is there for laws where the mere possession of an agricultural product, which was completely legal when the Constitution was written, could be considered a crime. The real issue should be not whether the search was illegal, but rather why the possession of dried leaves is illegal?