ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Good point...
A Pro Palin thread
- Thread starter ChChoda
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
Red, the DEA has nothing to do with weed not being decriminalized. All Congreess has to do is write the bill, send it to the President and he signs it!!!!
Kidz, stay in skool!!!
Kidz, stay in skool!!!
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
jakethetank
Well-Known Member
palin is a douche
CrackerJax
New Member
We as a country are probably not going to see such a Democrat laden Congress for decades to come.
Now as much as that sad fact is true (about all the Dem's in charge), as a STONER, I also recognize that THIS IS IT!!!!
If we can;'t get it passed before 2010 elections .... guess what?!!! IT"S OVER for quite a spell.
Who knows how far back the rubberband will be snapped back??? Think the states can't be brought to heel? Think again my friends.
OBAMA and Congress, if they fail now, it will become a long term failure.
Now as much as that sad fact is true (about all the Dem's in charge), as a STONER, I also recognize that THIS IS IT!!!!
If we can;'t get it passed before 2010 elections .... guess what?!!! IT"S OVER for quite a spell.
Who knows how far back the rubberband will be snapped back??? Think the states can't be brought to heel? Think again my friends.
OBAMA and Congress, if they fail now, it will become a long term failure.
in legal terms it's called: JURISDICTION. congress does not have jurisdiction on what substance is considered an illegal drug or not, nor does the president....
how many times do I have to repeat this?
if congress wants jurisdiction they have to repeal the law in place......................... right now those decisions fall in the hands of the DEA and FDA. it's an administrative issue withing the federal government now. congress has no say, it made the original list, but after that it is pointed out in the freaking LAW that congress doesn't decide what gets put in the list or not...
that's why the law is so fucked up.... a agency whose sole existence relies upon certain substances being considered illegal, gets to choose what drugs are illegal or not... it is in their best interest to keep the most widely used schedule 1 drug illegal, it keeps their business going.....
that law also states that the government must censor all research that suggests a schedule 1 drug has medical benefits. because falling into the schedule 1 classification makes it illegal to do any research on the drug regarding medical benefits...
even if congress wants to, it can't make a schedule 1 drug legal.
the jurisdiction over that was handed over to the DEA.....once a drug is placed on that list, it's not comming out.... unless a new drug law is enacted, which repeals the old law, and puts forth a new way of considering which drugs are legal or not..... need I say it again???
any attempt by congress to legalize any substance on schedule 1 will be successfully appealed by the DEA to the supreme court on the basis of seperation of powers:
congress (the legislative branch), cannot try to over-run the jurisdiction invested in the DEA (an administrative agency, part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH) by law....
the court WILL find that the law passed by congress violates seperation of powers, because the legislative branch would be trying to intervene in powers that are invested in the executive branch....
damn.... i can't believe it's been so hard to explain this....
this is precisely WHY the power over who decides what drug is illegal was placed on the hands of an administrative agency.... lawmakers knew that any law that attempts to legalize any drug will be unsuccessful because of separation of powers.... the crows in washington aren't as dumb as some of you may think.....
congress (the legislative branch), cannot try to over-run the jurisdiction invested in the DEA (an administrative agency, part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH) by law....
the court WILL find that the law passed by congress violates seperation of powers, because the legislative branch would be trying to intervene in powers that are invested in the executive branch....
damn.... i can't believe it's been so hard to explain this....
this is precisely WHY the power over who decides what drug is illegal was placed on the hands of an administrative agency.... lawmakers knew that any law that attempts to legalize any drug will be unsuccessful because of separation of powers.... the crows in washington aren't as dumb as some of you may think.....
tricombingthesehairs
Active Member
she is the best they got good for her.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
No way she's the best the Republicans can offer.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
You're right...this guy is better!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/zombie_reagan_raised_from_grave?utm_source=videoembed
Katatawnic
Well-Known Member
One could ask the same of you.
Some people can't understand that enforcers of laws don't make the laws.
I'm far from "pro" Palin, but remarks like this are uncalled for, absolutely unnecessary, and do nothing more than reveal the vast immaturity of those who make them.
CrackerJax
New Member
Even in misreading the power of Congress to make the law of the land, ...... drum roll ... he's still wrong!! 
Who's the head of the Executive branch?
Wrong and still wrong, and now back in the same place 2 days ago, and still wrong.
Kidz ... do I need to say it?? Do I?
Dang right I do ... Stay in Skool!!
Who's the head of the Executive branch?
Wrong and still wrong, and now back in the same place 2 days ago, and still wrong.
Kidz ... do I need to say it?? Do I?
Dang right I do ... Stay in Skool!!
shylas
Active Member
And thats about ALL shes good for.
she couldn't handle being gov cause the
media circuis was so destracting to her work in office so she quit.
Does she think being president will be easier?
I don't want a woman who makes emotion driven decisions as my president.
I'm a woman so I can say this.... most women are way to emotional to be pres.
Who knows what kind of decisions could come out of a 5 day hormone attack before a womans cycle! lol
Katatawnic
Well-Known Member
No, it did not... see below.
Simple. Legislation gave the DEA permission to classify drugs, according to guidelines they were given permission to establish. Legislation can override that permission. Be it in general, or a particular drug.
Why is it so hard to understand that a being or entity only has the jurisdiction given by his/her/its boss, and that jurisdiction is just as easily taken away by said boss? (The lawmakers are, of course, the "boss" of the law enforcers which are, in this case, the DEA.)
Try to see it in a more simple scenario. Just try.
For instance, say you're the manager of whatever company for which you work. The bulk of your job is to hire & fire, as well as delegate responsibilities to, the employees that fall under your position. The owner of said establishment tells you one day that he's not happy with the performance of one of the employees you hired, and you are to let that person go. You don't agree with this decision, but you have to do what your boss tells you to do, or you'll no longer have your job. He's the one that ultimately decides what does and does not make up a part of your job. He has the right to give and take away what you believe to be your rights within your job, because he is your boss.
Law enforcement (specifically in this case, the DEA) only has the permission and jurisdiction to do what the lawmakers (their bosses; in this case Congress) give them. When the lawmakers establish or repeal a law, law enforcement has to comply and make changes in what they enforce and/or how they enforce it.
(A very dumbed-down analogy, but an analogy all the same.)
that is not how it works... you used an example that utilizes a business model, in which a hierarchy exists... the fact that you used this example tells me about your ignorance of the mechanisms of government.
there is no 'boss'...
the legislature is not the 'boss' of the executive branch. there is no 'boss' in the government. each branch of the government cannot, by law, order any other around. this is very important for you to understand.
classifying and enforcing drug law was removed from a legislative issue. it is not up to congress to decide which drug is legal or not. it is that simple. any attempt by congress to influence drug policy can be, and most probably will be, viewed as an attempt by congress to intrude in the powers invested in the executive agencies called the DEA and FDA. these agencies can argue, successfully, that any debate concerning the legality of any drug lies solely within the jurisdiction of the FDA and DEA, as expressed by law. the supreme court WILL find this to be the case. that is why any sort of legislation to legalize marijuana has never been taken seriously. it just can't happen though congress.... not with the law from 1970 in place.....
there is no 'boss'...
the legislature is not the 'boss' of the executive branch. there is no 'boss' in the government. each branch of the government cannot, by law, order any other around. this is very important for you to understand.
classifying and enforcing drug law was removed from a legislative issue. it is not up to congress to decide which drug is legal or not. it is that simple. any attempt by congress to influence drug policy can be, and most probably will be, viewed as an attempt by congress to intrude in the powers invested in the executive agencies called the DEA and FDA. these agencies can argue, successfully, that any debate concerning the legality of any drug lies solely within the jurisdiction of the FDA and DEA, as expressed by law. the supreme court WILL find this to be the case. that is why any sort of legislation to legalize marijuana has never been taken seriously. it just can't happen though congress.... not with the law from 1970 in place.....
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
so the solution is what?