Yes, it’s a waste of time. But what else do stoners have to do.

Wow

Some damn good points are being made tonight

Edward: Won’t wash, the libs pet judge didn’t touch the interstate clause; she did rule that federal law was not subservient to tate law (which will be overturned on appeal)

It’s not the same thing. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that only Congress can enforce immigration laws. This was the basis of the challenge. There is nothing in the Constitution about drugs.

Props are unconstitutional as we are not a democracy

We are a democratic republic ruled by law.

So, it says prop 19 shows their are more people that are racist than not.

Get the drift.

LAW IS SET BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY THE LEGISLATURE NOT BY THE majority.

Start listing laws that the majority would pass if they could.

5000 per month for all people making under 30k per year.

That would get a MAJORITY VOTE, and tax the rich to pay for it.

THAT WOULD GET THE MAJORITY VOTE

RIGHT?

THINK, THEN POST, just a recommendation.

gee Wally I dont know does this mean sanctuary cities are out too?

From my reading of it, I would say that Prop. 19 would also violate the Supremacy Clause…

he Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute.” In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[1]
Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or

Just because some X-clinton hack judge was too chicken S**T to actually rule fairly based on justice and precidents and listened to the lies of the liberal media, Don’t be so happy and start dancing like a retard. Your not going to win any ‘fight’ with 70% of America agreeing with the legislation. You should worry that the 30% don’t piss off the 70% and start becoming extinct.

Amnesty for illegals and stoners. You want to cut the budget deficit? Stop spending shitloads of money chasing down the stoners and lettuce pickers, and instead collect taxes from them. Seems simple enough to me.

Tee hee, “Your Assistant” is funny. He doesn’t seem to understand what a republic is, but that’s cool.

As for the rest, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that even marijuana grown at home exclusively for consumption at home can be constitutionally regulated through the interstate commerce clause. This is based on Wickard v. Filburn, , 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and while I think it’s a ridiculous ruling based on an equally ridiculous precedent, what the Court says goes. This is one of the very, very few cases where I think Clarence Thomas had it precisely right.