War On Pot

#204
#204
hog88 said:
1. POTUS needs to uphold the law and work to elect a congress that will repeal it.

2. What? That makes no sense. Congress has given the President wide latitudes on committing US troops, congress needs to rescind that authority.

3. I don't think you know what a joke is.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the constitution that congress can cede power to the president?

You're saying that congress has the power to waive its duties, but the POTUS cannot? Seriously?
 
#205
#205
n_huffhines said:
Where does it say in the constitution that congress can cede power to the president?

You're saying that congress has the power to waive its duties, but the POTUS cannot? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Not waive its duties, it’s duties are basically to approve a budget and funding. If they don’t put controls on that they are ceding power.

One day you might want to open a civics book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#206
#206
hog88 said:
Not waive its duties, it’s duties are basically to approve a budget and funding. If they don’t put controls on that they are ceding power.

One day you might want to open a civics book.
Click to expand...

It's congress's duty to declare war. We've had the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan and congress has not declared war. You're constitutionally cool with congress ceding this power and now you are saying the president can wage war on his own nation without their declaration. This is all well and good in your mind, but the POTUS can't refuse to fund marijuana prosecutions.

Makes perfect sense.
 
#207
#207
n_huffhines said:
It's congress's duty to declare war. We've had the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan and congress has not declared war. You're constitutionally cool with congress ceding this power and now you are saying the president can wage war on his own nation without their declaration. This is all well and good in your mind, but the POTUS can't refuse to fund marijuana prosecutions.

Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

The president can declare war w/o Congress. He just needs them to fund it.
 
#208
#208
n_huffhines said:
It's congress's duty to declare war. We've had the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan and congress has not declared war. You're constitutionally cool with congress ceding this power and now you are saying the president can wage war on his own nation without their declaration. This is all well and good in your mind, but the POTUS can't refuse to fund marijuana prosecutions.

Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

No I’m not ok with it, that’s why I will not be voting for any incumbent R in 18 and probably 20. But what congress has done is constitutional.
 
#213
#213
midnight orange said:
The 10th amendment

“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.”

Narcotic regulation or probition is not a power delegated to the federal govt in the Constitution regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
Click to expand...

That little piece of "all other" folklore was doomed to an early death by the first Federalists. By the end of the Civil War it had been shot, stabbed, strangled, sliced and diced, and the dismembered parts buried in scattered, unmarked graves. If the libs and the DC crowd - among others - had their way we'd just erase the trailing "s" in "United States".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
SpaceCoastVol said:
If everything were legal, that would require recognizing and (enforcing?) personal responsibility. We can't have that because tear filled liberals have to save the world. If you shoot legalized heroine and become a heroine addict, people that don't would have to save your life. If personal responsibility were (enforced), that heroine addict would know what he/she was getting into and would suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but this is a nanny state and quickly becoming worse, asking people to take personal responsibility is totally off the books. Now taxing individuals to pay for others "personal responsibility" - that's alive and well. Remember even libraries are stocking up on Narcan - enabling is as far away from a self correcting error as you can possibly get. We are on a course absolutely the opposite of requiring personal responsibility.
 
#215
#215
AM64 said:
That little piece of "all other" folklore was doomed to an early death by the first Federalists. By the end of the Civil War it had been shot, stabbed, strangled, sliced and diced, and the dismembered parts buried in scattered, unmarked graves. If the libs and the DC crowd - among others - had their way we'd just erase the trailing "s" in "United States".
Click to expand...

We're not even the same country. Slavery was eradicated (good) as well as state sovereignty (bad). We went from a union of sovereign states (which was a check on power) to an all powerful centralized federal gov't . When referring to the country, it became referred to in the singular as opposed to the plural.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#218
#218
n_huffhines said:
Where does it say in the constitution that congress can cede power to the president?

You're saying that congress has the power to waive its duties, but the POTUS cannot? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one I remember saying that the president isn't required to enforce laws passed by congress? Now you are saying that the constitution doesn't allow congress to cede power to the executive? Isn't giving someone the right not to enforce the same as ceding power - making enforcement of law optional? Is there a checkbox for mandatory or voluntary enforcement when legislation is passed? One would say the executive has no option - only compliance, and the other ceding power to the president.
 
#219
#219
n_huffhines said:
Congress passes an unconstitutional law that says federal funds go to immigrants. POTUS vetoes. Congress passes with 2/3. POTUS sues. SCOTUS sides with congress. Then what?

War? That's where we want to go next? You'd rather the president declare war (which he does not have the power to do) then nullify?

You guys know how big of a joke you are, right?
Click to expand...

except what you are proposing allows any branch of the government to do whatever it wants. whats then to stop Congress from funding some method to do it, impeaching or etc. you are giving a lot of power to the executive branch, the others will escalate as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#221
#221
n_huffhines said:
It's a logical exercise. You have to carry your interpretation to extremes to poke holes in it and there are major holes.

If the SCOTUS backs congress, then what? Kill all Christians? NULLIFICATION
Click to expand...

This is your MO. You aren't interested in practical discussion. And you get real butthurt when people consider your "extreme interpretation" as extreme, or simply don't want to play that game.

In this case, Congress passed a bill. It was signed into federal law by the President. SCOTUS has not found it to be unconstitutional. DOJ enforces the federal law. Federal law trumps state law. If people want the law changed, start the process over and let Congress change it.

It's as elementary as that, and no amount of "logical exercises" need to be carried out in order to rationalize or debate it in a practical sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#222
#222
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#223
#223
golfballs said:
Here you go folks. A bill that a REPUBLICAN (*GASP*) introduced to legalize weed. The co-sponsors are on both sides of the aisle. If you want something changed, instead of crying about Jeff Sessions doing his job, why don't you call your Congressmen to do theirs

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Click to expand...

That sir would require them to do something other than ***** and whine! How dare you!
 
#224
#224
golfballs said:
This is your MO. You aren't interested in practical discussion. And you get real butthurt when people consider your "extreme interpretation" as extreme, or simply don't want to play that game.

In this case, Congress passed a bill. It was signed into federal law by the President. SCOTUS has not found it to be unconstitutional. DOJ enforces the federal law. Federal law trumps state law. If people want the law changed, start the process over and let Congress change it.

It's as elementary as that, and no amount of "logical exercises" need to be carried out in order to rationalize or debate it in a practical sense.
Click to expand...

The practical outcome is that some states are effectively nullifying marijuana prohibition. This is a good thing because it is a check on unfettered federal power. Now, you can still be arrested by federal agents for marijuana but not having state agents enforcing neuters the law to some degree.
 
Last edited:
#225
#225
golfballs said:
Here you go folks. A bill that a REPUBLICAN (*GASP*) introduced to legalize weed. The co-sponsors are on both sides of the aisle. If you want something changed, instead of crying about Jeff Sessions doing his job, why don't you call your Congressmen to do theirs

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Click to expand...

All jobs involve and require discretion. It's why you don't get tickets for 46 in a 45. Sessions should get better as using descretion. But if you've ever heard him talk about drugs, the fact that he's a hopeless fool comes out quick
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top