Prop 19 on Fox News "Federal Law Trumps State Law"

[dannno]

YouTube - "If California Legalizes Marijuana The FEDS Will Shut It Down!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bkIm1SgL2g)

[free1]

Interstate commerce clause, yes they will be able to control sales to any subjects that are owned by the United States government.

It only applies to United States citizens (subject class, owned, slaves).

Other than that, the feds have no jurisdiction within the States.

If the above confuses you, please look up sovereignty, and remember the status people were after we became free of the King of England.

Why would anyone want to be a subject of a king ever again?

[Baptist]

"like totally." Guess this chick is a news anchor because she couldn't cut it as a prosecutor. Glad to see that Fox News is once again representing the constitutional position on a matter. Not.

[dean.engelhardt]

Public health????? Seems to me the hospitals are full of people sick and dying from drinking and smoking cigarettes. Want scientific proof? Run a study dummy. If people have pot to turn to instead of tobacco and alcohol we will be better public health.

BTW, I don't use pot and don’t encourage other to use it. I just hate stupid people.
.

[amy31416]

Interstate commerce clause, yes they will be able to control sales to any subjects that are owned by the United States government.

It only applies to United States citizens (subject class, owned, slaves).

Other than that, the feds have no jurisdiction within the States.

If the above confuses you, please look up sovereignty, and remember the status people were after we became free of the King of England.

Why would anyone want to be a subject of a king ever again?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the interstate commerce clause apply only to interstate commerce? Doesn't Montana skirt federal law on firearms using this notion?

This could (and should) be challenged in court--even though I have little faith in the Federal Supreme court, especially nowadays.

[raistlinkishtar]

How can interstate commerce laws be applied to people that grow, sell, and smoke within the state of California?

I'm really getting sick of this "federal law trumps state law" nonsense.

[newyearsrevolution08]

fuck the fed

they keep trying to prove how they can do what they want until actual law backs the patients as well as our state courts.

It is like that pushy cop, until someone actually can show them that they are NOT god him or herself they will run around doing whatever the hell they want to.

power trip to the furthest extent.

[fedup100]

How can interstate commerce laws be applied to people that grow, sell, and smoke within the state of California?

I'm really getting sick of this "federal law trumps state law" nonsense.

Federal law does not now nor did it ever trump any laws of a sovereign state, in fact it is just the opposite!

This one issue is our last issue as far as total tyranny. States right will be restored or we will be over as a free country.

Time has come to dig out the original version per the founders regarding state sovereignty, freedom of religion, immigration etc and get back to basics. No more debate, we follow the founders guide or die.

[pcosmar]

Federal law does not now nor did it ever trump any laws of a sovereign state, in fact it is just the opposite!

This one issue is our last issue as far as total tyranny. States right will be restored or we will be over as a free country.

Time has come to dig out the original version per the founders regarding state sovereignty, freedom of religion, immigration etc and get back to basics. No more debate, we follow the founders guide or die.

Commerce Clause has been a Catch All for years. This needs to be reversed.
NO,,It needs to be Smacked Down Hard.

There is one good example of this happening recently. Almost unheard and unknown.
United States v. Lopez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
It was a 2nd Amendment case, but the court did recognize that there are limits of the Commerce Clause.

Food for thought,,ammo for the fight. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

Unfortunately, the Federal Supreme Court gets to decide if Federal Law trumps State law...and with our three branches of Federal government in lock step (along with the media), States will not win.

[fedup100]

Unfortunately, the Federal Supreme Court gets to decide if Federal Law trumps State law...and with our three branches of Federal government in lock step (along with the media), States will not win.

Of course, why do you think Ali Bama and those before him are stacking the court. Is it time yet?

The supreme's have over stepped their authority already, it is time to do away with that Court.

[Cowlesy]

Constitutional Amendment to strike the Interstate Commerce Clause from the U.S. Constitution?

[Lucille]

YouTube - Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqsk)

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/09/wheat-weed-and-obamacare/

That evil, fascist SOB FDR is still at the top of every best presidents list. America loves her tyrants!

[WaltM]

Has ANYBODY, EVER argued otherwise? (those that are in power, of course)

[silentshout]

Ugh, what a bimbo..where do they find these people? And these guys, how much more can they love the federal government? idiots.

I want this to pass for many reasons, but also to see what the Feds will do and how California will react. When will people wake up?

[Anti Federalist]

Ask the pro fed folks this:

Why did it require a constitutional amendment to ban booze, but it doesn't take one to ban pot?

[Brian4Liberty]

Ask the pro fed folks this:

Why did it require a constitutional amendment to ban booze, but it doesn't take one to ban pot?

Now that's a good argument. Surprised that it is not commonly used...

[newyearsrevolution08]

Now that's a good argument. Surprised that it is not commonly used...

not bad at all actually

gunna use that in my next med rant lol.

[pcosmar]

Now that's a good argument. Surprised that it is not commonly used...

Yup
Especially after the Marijuana Tax act was found to be Unconstitutional.
:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[11] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[12]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.

[Anti Federalist]

Now that's a good argument. Surprised that it is not commonly used...

The question is rhetorical, the answer being, of course, that the fed has no constitutional authority to ban pot, or any other drug for that matter.

They just did it and now it's an accepted fait accompli.

[BULBASAUR!]

YouTube - John Stossel - War on Drugs - Part 6 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTjh03DKihM)

skip to 2:55. The narcotics officer completely ignores the guy's question. This basically proves that they have absolutely no constitutional authority to ban any drug.