Medical marijuana wins final vote in Delaware

Yurt said:
the corn (iirc) crop case. aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

imo...it goes beyond the framers intent, scotus has upheld it though....i understand the reasoning, but it gives way, way, way to much power to the government.
Click to expand...

wickard v. filburn, it was about the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, that they were limited to a certain amount.

if it's beyond the framers intent and violates the constitution, are we bound to abide by it?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
wickard v. filburn, it was about the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, that they were limited to a certain amount.

if it's beyond the framers intent and violates the constitution, are we bound to abide by it?
Click to expand...

that's it...couldn't remember if it was wheat or corn.

we are bound by it. if we don't like the decision, we need to petition congress to make a law that nullifies that decision. the three branch system of government is what makes this country so great. other countries pay no attention to their courts or judicial system and you most often see tyranny. the checks and balance system we have is not perfect, but it is the best system in the world at this point. unlike other countries, you and i can try and change that ruling. we just need to get enough people to vote for congressmen who will make a law that nullifies that ruling. be it a constitutional amendment or just a new law....we at least have the power to try and change it.

further....we could vote for presidents who will stack the court with like minds.

what other country on earth can do that?
 
Yurt said:
that's it...couldn't remember if it was wheat or corn.

we are bound by it. if we don't like the decision, we need to petition congress to make a law that nullifies that decision. the three branch system of government is what makes this country so great. other countries pay no attention to their courts or judicial system and you most often see tyranny. the checks and balance system we have is not perfect, but it is the best system in the world at this point. unlike other countries, you and i can try and change that ruling. we just need to get enough people to vote for congressmen who will make a law that nullifies that ruling. be it a constitutional amendment or just a new law....we at least have the power to try and change it.

further....we could vote for presidents who will stack the court with like minds.

what other country on earth can do that?
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't bound by it. The feds can only regulate interstate commerce.
 
Yurt said:
that's it...couldn't remember if it was wheat or corn.

we are bound by it. if we don't like the decision, we need to petition congress to make a law that nullifies that decision. the three branch system of government is what makes this country so great. other countries pay no attention to their courts or judicial system and you most often see tyranny. the checks and balance system we have is not perfect, but it is the best system in the world at this point. unlike other countries, you and i can try and change that ruling. we just need to get enough people to vote for congressmen who will make a law that nullifies that ruling. be it a constitutional amendment or just a new law....we at least have the power to try and change it.

further....we could vote for presidents who will stack the court with like minds.

what other country on earth can do that?
Click to expand...

there are many federal and supreme court cases out there that have declared any law that violates the constitution is null and void and need not be followed. and you're forgetting the most important branch of the government. we the people. we have the power of nullification and should actively use it. the reason it isn't is that the majority of people in this country have been dumbed down to believe that they MUST follow the governments rulings. pure crap. learn how to be a free american again.
 
We do have jury nullification. Other than that we have only civil disobediance, which in this increasingly fascist state could be personaly dangerous as Randy Weaver and many others discovered.
 
St. Peter said:
Its not really nullification, seeing as how the power to determine guilt and innocence is specifically vested in juries.
Click to expand...

It is nullification of a law, which is what jury nullification referes to, when a jury chooses not to apply a law they feel is unjust to a given case.
 
It doesn't really attack the law. All it really does is declare the defendent not guilty of violating a law, even while its painfully obvious that he/she did violate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top