dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Can you cite a case that got thrown out? I believe you're assuming this has all been thoroughly tested in the courts. AFAIK, it hasn't been. Do you know otherwise?
Sessions
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
In fact, another thought is this: Jeff Sessions just might turn out to be the guy that legalizes marijuana nation wide. Here's how he'll do it:
IF, and it's a BIG fucking IF, he gets what he wants and goes after legitimate growers in California, Colorado, or anywhere else, you can bet that the very first case is going to go before a Federal Judge. The lawyer will then move for an immediate dismissal because the Federal Government has no standing in the case.
Now, for those of you who don't know: The thing a Judge hates more than anything is to be overruled. So they typically always follow the letter of the law. As such, they will rule that the Federal Government has no standing, and kick the case over to State Court where the State will of course dismiss it as it isn't illegal under state law.
But good ol' Jeff isn't going to take that lying down. He'll appeal. It will then go to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the case of California.
Once again, for those who don't know, that's about the LAST place on earth you ever want to go if you're trying to trump states rights. Only the 11th circuit is worse.
They'll toss it too.
But Jeff wont take that lying down either. He'll appeal it to the Supreme Court. And this is where it gets really, really ugly for Jeff. IF the court decides to hear it (which is very, very unlikely as none of them are going to want to rule against the Justice Department) then they'll have no choice but to side with the State.
Either way, Jeff is going to lose and there will be a very, very loud THUD heard 'round the world when the ability of any drug enforcement agency to enforce anti-marijuana laws in states that allow it hits the bottom of a 6 foot deep grave.
Why? For the reasons I've already listed.
IF, and it's a BIG fucking IF, he gets what he wants and goes after legitimate growers in California, Colorado, or anywhere else, you can bet that the very first case is going to go before a Federal Judge. The lawyer will then move for an immediate dismissal because the Federal Government has no standing in the case.
Now, for those of you who don't know: The thing a Judge hates more than anything is to be overruled. So they typically always follow the letter of the law. As such, they will rule that the Federal Government has no standing, and kick the case over to State Court where the State will of course dismiss it as it isn't illegal under state law.
But good ol' Jeff isn't going to take that lying down. He'll appeal. It will then go to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the case of California.
Once again, for those who don't know, that's about the LAST place on earth you ever want to go if you're trying to trump states rights. Only the 11th circuit is worse.
They'll toss it too.
But Jeff wont take that lying down either. He'll appeal it to the Supreme Court. And this is where it gets really, really ugly for Jeff. IF the court decides to hear it (which is very, very unlikely as none of them are going to want to rule against the Justice Department) then they'll have no choice but to side with the State.
Either way, Jeff is going to lose and there will be a very, very loud THUD heard 'round the world when the ability of any drug enforcement agency to enforce anti-marijuana laws in states that allow it hits the bottom of a 6 foot deep grave.
Read. NO CASE has EVER BEEN FILED TO BEGIN WITH.
Why? For the reasons I've already listed.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Which is why I'm confused by your absolute statements here. It hasn't been tested. When Obama took office, weed wasn't fully legal in any state and so far, the Justice Department has chosen to mostly stay out of it. These are relatively untested waters. Sessions might be up for testing it. Your scenario sounds completely plausible and well thought out, though.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
*sigh*
No. Only you do, apparently.
As of this printing, the federal government claims that marijuana is not medicine and in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. Thus, federal law enforcement officials may prosecute medical marijuana patients, even if they grow their own medicine and even if they reside in a state where medical marijuana use is protected under state law.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Wrong, nimrod.
If anybody thought any differently at all then they would have tried it by now. They haven't because they know the exact same things that I know and then some. That is exactly how it will end. Again, everybody with a brain (or an education) knows it. That is why they've never even tried to pursue it and are looking for new power so that they can. They know with the current set of rules they're powerless.
Triggered.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Yep. His obtuseness triggered me much as yours frequently does. I can't help but be disappointed and a little annoyed when confronted with your level of stupidity.
A little triggered?
Guilty!
londonfog
Well-Known Member
The guy stated case law for you.
Either you are no good at this or you are a dumb fucking troll.
either way you fucking sucking, but continue
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Apparently, TacoMac has no idea of the actual troubles that "legal" growers are facing regularly in California or Colorado. Local pigs who think they are above the law, so they call themselves "federally-sworn" and can do anything they want to do.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You are unbelievably ignorant. did you know that your state of Colorado is a common law state?
You didn't even need a marriage licence :Colo. Stat. §14-2-109.5
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You are a supreme douche. but absolutely correct on this. interstate commerce has been twisted and stretched to the point it has become the biggest source of federal power imo. some of those decisions are so blatantly in contrast with the clause it's rediculous.
and yet here we are hitting the limits of even that.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
civil infraction, standard notice-compliance procedure depending on local municipality.
ask me how I know.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Please. Nobody ask the moron.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I've been caught out of compliance twice.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Nobody asked, shithead.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
enjoy being a low information voter. being scared is part and partial to being uninformed.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Heinrich was masterful at exposing Sessions' pathetic attempt to claim "possible future executive privilege invocations the president may wish to make later" (or whatever the fuck that bullshit was) for what it was. Obstruction and obfuscation. Our Democratic system has been attacked by a foreign hostile power and these motherfuckers want to lie and obfuscate? I found it very telling that Sessions answered 'no' when asked if he had been part of any cabinet-level discussions about what the Russians did and how to defend against future attempts which will surely come -- as soon as next year. They were in on it or they don't care. Those are the only two possible options here.