War On Pot

#101
#101
LouderVol said:
what if el presidente doesn't think the law is immoral?
Click to expand...

I'm saying POTUS, for whatever reason, doesn't have to enforce laws that are under his jurisdiction. He can do it for moral reasons. He can do it for political reasons. He can do it for constitutional reasons.

He can't legally stop a state from enforcing a state law without SCOTUS backing him, but he can refuse to enforce a federal law on a state. For whatever reason. That doesn't mean he doesn't face consequences. He might get impeached, but that's another check/balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#102
#102
n_huffhines said:
All this jabber and you haven't pointed to the part of the constitution that says the POTUS has to execute/can't nullify. What a surprise.
Click to expand...

Article 2 section 3 clause 5.

The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[25] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause,[26] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[27] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[28] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President [26] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[29
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#105
#105
hog88 said:
Your right Huff, it doesn't specifically say he has to enforce every law. Got me.
Click to expand...

That wasn't as satisfying as I thought. Sorry I went hard on you. You're definitely not on GB's level. I already knew that, but you can own a mistake, which puts you at least in the top 10% of the politics forum. :good!:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#107
#107
n_huffhines said:
That wasn't as satisfying as I thought. Sorry I went hard on you. You're definitely not on GB's level. I already knew that, but you can own a mistake, which puts you at least in the top 10% of the politics forum. :good!:
Click to expand...

I wasn't mistaken.
 
#109
#109
Lawmakers are the ones ultimately responsible for the laws in this land. In wackadoo libertarian la la land, that defies reasoning!
 
#112
#112
hog88 said:
What about it? And how does that pertain to this discussion?
Click to expand...

Your quote "Nobody has ever even been charged with violating the Logan act so it's a toothless waste of legislation."

Are they going to enforce the obvious violation of this law by Flynn or overlook it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#113
#113
Mick said:
Your quote "Nobody has ever even been charged with violating the Logan act so it's a toothless waste of legislation."

Are they going to enforce the obvious violation of this law by Flynn or overlook it?
Click to expand...

It's quite possible that no AG has found a case they thought was prosecutable (including Flynns) in the 219 years since the acts inception. Hell Muller hasn't even charged Flynn with a Logan Act violation.

Now if you found some type of order by a POTUS or AG saying they weren't going to prosecute anyone using the act your question would be relevant.
 
#114
#114
ClearwaterVol said:
John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
Click to expand...

This is a very odd line of defense. Because Jackson refused to allow people to aid the Cherokee people and fight for their sovereignty, you think it should compel Sessions to not enforce federal law on marijuana?

The issue we're talking about is Sessions permitting his department to uphold federal law. One that the Supreme Court has upheld. This really only serves as a defense for continuing to refuse to prosecute these crimes if that were the case, and again, it's an odd case to hitch your wagon to.
 
Last edited:
#115
#115
hog88 said:
It's quite possible that no AG has found a case they thought was prosecutable (including Flynns) in the 219 years since the acts inception. Hell Muller hasn't even charged Flynn with a Logan Act violation.

Now if you found some type of order by a POTUS or AG saying they weren't going to prosecute anyone using the act your question would be relevant.
Click to expand...

Just giving an example. By the code "The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position". This could easily apply to all involved in the Trump Tower meeting. Comes down to the DOJ if they are or not going to charge them. Does not have to be a memo or anything in writing.
 
#116
#116
Mick said:
Just giving an example. By the code "The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position". This could easily apply to all involved in the Trump Tower meeting. Comes down to the DOJ if they are or not going to charge them. Does not have to be a memo or anything in writing.
Click to expand...

You might have a point if there had been any precedent (anyone ever even charged) during the last 2 centuries.
 
#117
#117
hog88 said:
You might have a point if there had been any precedent (anyone ever even charged) during the last 2 centuries.
Click to expand...

Two charged no convictions. I don't know the details but It is a law that seems to be being ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#118
#118
Mick said:
Two charged no convictions. I don't know the details but It is a law that seems to be being ignored.
Click to expand...

Or impossible to prosecute? So again it's not applicable to this discussion.
 
#122
#122
Mick said:
What makes it impossible to prosecute? The unwillingness to try to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe you should ask all of our attorney generals who haven't convicted anyone of it since 1799.
 
#123
#123
n_huffhines said:
Dude, I smoked all the time and then I would go visit my sister for a week and I don't even notice that I'm not using. Try that with any other drug. Try that with coffee or alcohol.

1 in 10 would be a higher addiction rate than cocaine, btw. Only like 6% of people who have ever used are currently addicted (IIRC the data).
Click to expand...
Is that why you are so argumentative?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#124
#124
Vol0725 said:
Okay 'dude' everyone's different...10% (that's what 1 out of 10 equals), 6% IIRC. potato potatoe. this study vs that study yada yada yada.

Although cannabis use often appears harmless and fun, long-term use leads to the development of cannabis use disorder. Basically, users become addicted to the high. This happens in as many as 10% of regular users (Treatment of cannabis use disorder).

The main addictive component of cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The higher the THC content, the more addictive the marijuana is, and the higher chance of developing an addiction.

Cannabis use disorder often leads to consequences like:

  • Cognitive impairment
  • Poor school or work performance
  • Psychiatric comorbidity like psychosis and mood disordersmood disorders

Fewer Americans have developed an addiction to cannabis than to other narcotics. However, it’s important to point out that there’s not a lot of research in this field. The public still widely sees cannabis use as harmless, which is the reason why it is the most used drug of all.

Yes weed is addicting. No I'm not against it in the slightest, but worshiping it and denying facts is detrimental to the cause of education. THC is a cannabinoid, cannabinoids are part of our natural brain process and regulate sleep, appetite and have an effect on mood. So when you smoke your body utilizes these active THC cannabinoids instead of your natural ones giving you an altered metabolism (munchies) and a sleep cycle with little to none REM sleep. If your cannabinoid receptors are overloaded with THC cannabinoids your body will stop producing natural ones as they are not needed. This means when a conditioned smoker quits cold turkey there is a transition phase and minor withdrawals including lack of appetite, sleeplessness, restlessness and irritability. Although minor, these withdrawals are caused by your body not having sufficient cannabinoids to regulate these processes while it transitions back to producing natural ones.

So yes it's real, yes it's minor to many people. As I said 'everyone's different..dude'

Peace Out & Go Vols!
Click to expand...
Huff has been really moody lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#125
#125
golfballs said:
It's DOJ's job to enforce our country's laws. If people don't like the laws, then have your lawmakers change them.
Click to expand...

It's funny in a hypocritical way that libs have been hellbent on forcing their goals and views nationally, and are all upset when their own version of state's rights is jeopardized. Their federalism can very well be the hand that bites; and worse, the pot taxes in their utopia can't be deducted from their federal taxes.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top