USFREEDOM WTF IS THAT PICTURE IN YOUR SIG AND WHY IS IT BLAMING PEOPLE ON DRUGS

SmarterThanYou said:
show us where the federal government has any authority whether you have weeds in your backyard or not, what you can ingest or not, and whether they can make you buy health insurance or penalize you.
Click to expand...

WE THE PEOPLE made the choice to live by the laws that are enacted in the US.
If we don't agree with the laws then it is our obligation to CHANGE the laws, not to violate them and then whine about the consequences.
I've had enough of people trying to spin this into other areas, so take your health insurance complaint and start another thread.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
WE THE PEOPLE made the choice to live by the laws that are enacted in the US.
If we don't agree with the laws then it is our obligation to CHANGE the laws, not to violate them and then whine about the consequences.
Click to expand...

“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137


“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346 (1973)
 
SmarterThanYou said:
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137


“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346 (1973)
Click to expand...

Then challenge it in court or stop your whining; because all you're doing now, is flapping your gums.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then post the challenge that you've filed in the courts, to argue your case.
But then; you don't have one and all you're really doing is flapping your gums, again.
Click to expand...

you can't challenge a law unless you have standing. you can't have standing unless you can show injury. since I, as an individual, don't grow or smoke MJ, I have no standing.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you can't challenge a law unless you have standing. you can't have standing unless you can show injury. since I, as an individual, don't grow or smoke MJ, I have no standing.
Click to expand...

Then why aren't you putting your support behind someone who does have standing.
OH-WAIT; it's because it's easier to whine, HUH!!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I don't currently know anyone doing such, besides, the statists on the supreme court have decided this issue in violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Just get in touch with some of the people on this board.
I'm sure they know someone who's currently awaiting trial and if they don't, well they could contact their local black market and find someone.

Your last comment is exactly why things don't change.
Since it's been decided, we might as well give up; but boy are we going to continue to whine abouit it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Your last comment is exactly why things don't change.
Since it's been decided, we might as well give up; but boy are we going to continue to whine abouit it.
Click to expand...

that doesn't mean I have given up. I still talk to people locally, my congressman, governor, etc. the only way to fix the situation we have now is to force political change either through the voting booth or treat it like alcohol prohibition and make it more expensive for the government to enforce it than it would be to make it legal.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that doesn't mean I have given up. I still talk to people locally, my congressman, governor, etc. the only way to fix the situation we have now is to force political change either through the voting booth or treat it like alcohol prohibition and make it more expensive for the government to enforce it than it would be to make it legal.
Click to expand...

YEAH, there's the ticket.
Make it more difficult for the government to enforce, so that the whining will continue.

What are you going to do, to make it more difficult for the government to enforce; besides flapping your gums?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
YEAH, there's the ticket.
Make it more difficult for the government to enforce, so that the whining will continue.

What are you going to do, to make it more difficult for the government to enforce; besides flapping your gums?
Click to expand...

just like prohibition. If voting doesn't work, you get violent. seems to have worked for the cartels anyway.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I agree; but that doesn't mean that people can violate the prohibition and then excuse their behavior by blaming their behavior on the prohibition.
Click to expand...
Right... Circular logic. The government program creates the problem then you try to blame it on some other thing. A government ignorant of human nature deserves the destruction it will eventually draw on itself.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
just like prohibition. If voting doesn't work, you get violent. seems to have worked for the cartels anyway.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you decide to start.
I wouldn't want to miss this on the news.

YEP, getting violent over mj is just the way to convince everyone that mj should be legalized. :palm:
 
Damocles said:
Right... Circular logic. The government program creates the problem then you try to blame it on some other thing. A government ignorant of human nature deserves the destruction it will eventually draw on itself.
Click to expand...

GEE, I don't know; but how about the people who disagree with the law, actually unite and work towards changing it.
NAH; it's better to sit arouind, support the black market, allow the death and suffering to continue, and then whine about it.

Much better approach. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just get in touch with some of the people on this board.
I'm sure they know someone who's currently awaiting trial and if they don't, well they could contact their local black market and find someone.

Your last comment is exactly why things don't change.
Since it's been decided, we might as well give up; but boy are we going to continue to whine abouit it.
Click to expand...

Who has been busted? Who has standing? It will take a good case for it, like the arrest of Lawrence or the Lovings. Even then, we might have to wait for a better court.

It's going to happen if the legislature does not change it first. The logic of the case law is inescapable and neither you nor anyone else has offered an argument against it. Majority will, will not cut it. It was not the reason for the court ruling against Raich, except maybe in hypocritical Scalia's opinion.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Let me know when you decide to start.
I wouldn't want to miss this on the news.

YEP, getting violent over mj is just the way to convince everyone that mj should be legalized. :palm:
Click to expand...

careful, your authoritarianism is showing.

something you probably don't care to recognize is that our nation was founded upon violence to free us from tyranny. whether it's taxes, gun control, mj prohibition, or anything else your idiot mind wants to conjure up, it's all tyranny of some sort. but your authoritarian bent probably thinks that the government gave us our rights, not our creator.
 
RStringfield said:
Who has been busted? Who has standing? It will take a good case for it, like the arrest of Lawrence or the Lovings. Even then, we might have to wait for a better court.

It's going to happen if the legislature does not change it first. The logic of the case law is inescapable and neither you nor anyone else has offered an argument against it. Majority will, will not cut it. It was not the reason for the court ruling against Raich, except maybe in hypocritical Scalia's opinion.
Click to expand...

this is something that deserves discussion. Our hypocritical and authoritarian supreme court has deemed themselves our betters at determining what is in our best interests. Nothing could be more obvious when we have rulings like US v. Lopez in stark contrast to US v. Raich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top