[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Eager To Imprison Medical Marijuana Users, Prosecutors Hide The Truth From Jurors
Source: Forbes
URL Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu ... nt-the-jury-to-hear-the-truth/
Published: Jan 29, 2015
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2015-01-30 09:17:11 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6269
Comments: 37

Imagine you are a juror in the federal trial of five people charged with growing and distributing marijuana in northeastern Washington. The prosecution cannot present any direct evidence that the defendants sold marijuana to anyone, and the defendants say they were growing all 74 plants for their own personal use. A bit of arithmetic reveals that the total number of plants comes to just under 15 per defendant, which happens to be the presumptive limit for patients under Washington’s medical marijuana law. Yet no one says anything about medical marijuana during the trial.

What you don’t realize is that the defense attorneys have been forbidden to discuss their clients’ reliance on Washington’s law, since federal law bans marijuana for all purposes. You also do not realize that each of the defendants faces at least 10 years in federal prison, because their lawyers are not allowed to talk about that either. And despite your suspicion that the defendants were growing marijuana for medical use, you are told that your job is to determine whether they violated federal law, which they undeniably did.

That is the situation jurors will confront when they sit down to hear the evidence against the Kettle Falls Five, whose trial is scheduled to begin on February 23 in Spokane. Larry Harvey and his co-defendants—his wife, Rhonda Firestack-Harvey; Rhonda’s son, Rolland Gregg; his wife, Michelle Gregg; and a family friend, Jason Zucker—are gambling that at least one juror will figure out what is really going on and vote for acquittal in the interest of justice, federal law be damned. That is their only hope of avoiding prison unless a federal judge agrees with defense attorneys that the prosecution is barred by a spending restriction Congress enacted last month or the feds suddenly decide to drop a case they have doggedly and inexplicably pursued since August 2012.

On the face of it, the Kettle Falls Five case defies Justice Department policy. Since 2009 the DOJ has been saying that prosecuting patients who use marijuana in compliance with state law “is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.” Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed that policy in an August 2013 memo that extended the department’s forbearance to state-licensed suppliers of recreational marijuana, provided their activities do not implicate “federal enforcement priorities.” As a result of this policy, businesses growing far more than 74 plants operate openly throughout Washington, including the very city where Harvey et al. are to be tried, without federal interference.

That situation makes the feds’ persistent pursuit of the Kettle Falls Five all the more puzzling. By federal standards, this would be a small-time case even if the defendants were supplying the black market, and there is no real evidence that they were—no customers, no deliveries, no undercover buys, no neighbors reporting suspicious visitors. All five have medical conditions that their doctors said could be treated with marijuana, including gout, osteoarthritis, wasting syndrome, and chronic pain from severe back injuries. They made no attempt to hide their plants, which they grew outside the Harveys’ house in a garden marked by flags bearing the green-cross symbol for medical marijuana. They clearly strove to stay within the state’s presumptive limit of 15 plants per patient, although Washington’s law would have allowed them to argue that more was medically necessary.

Harvey et al.’s lawyers, in a February 2014 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, said Michael Ormsby, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, was unimpressed by the evidence of medical use. “In a meeting with the United States Attorney in late 2012,” they wrote, “a member of the defense team went to painstaking lengths to explain the exact nature of the defendants’ medical marijuana usage. A dual-board-certified doctor who is internationally recognized as being an expert witness on cannabis as medicine described in detail how the amount and various forms of marijuana seized [are] clearly indicative of patient consumption. Unfortunately, the USAO insists on proceeding with this unnecessary indictment at great expense to taxpayers and against the DOJ’s direct orders.”

In framing that indictment, prosecutors made sure the defendants would qualify for prison sentences of at least 10 years. Speculating about previous harvests, they charged Harvey et al. with growing a total of at least 100 plants, which triggers a five-year mandatory minimum. They also noted that the Harveys, like many people in eastern Washington, had guns in their house, which according to the government means the defendants possessed firearms “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime. That qualifies them for another five years, and the two sentences must be served consecutively. Three other charges in the indictment—conspiracy to grow marijuana, distribution of marijuana, and “maintaining a place…for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, and using marijuana”—could make the defendants’ sentences even longer.

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

What you don’t realize is that the defense attorneys have been forbidden to discuss their clients’ reliance on Washington’s law

It's a federal trial. And as Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Hicks noted, the defendants’ claim that it was for medical purposes was "false and phony."

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-30   9:26:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

"Eager To Imprison Medical Marijuana Users ..."

Very first sentence of the article:

"Imagine you are a juror in the federal trial of five people charged with growing and distributing marijuana ..."

Hugh difference between "using" and "growing and distributing".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   9:26:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: misterwhite (#2)

charged with growing and distributing marijuana

For personal use in accordance with State law.

NOT distributing.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-01-30   9:29:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Deckard (#0)

"As a result of this policy, businesses growing far more than 74 plants operate openly throughout Washington"

But, but ... they're doing it!

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   9:30:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Palmdale (#1)

And as Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Hicks noted, the defendants’ claim that it was for medical purposes was "false and phony."

Gosh, a Federal prosecutor making shit up?

I'm shocked I tell ya!

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-01-30   9:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#2)

One of 'em claimed the pot was being used to cure his gout. That pot is a wonder drug I tells ya!

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-30   9:31:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#5)

a Federal prosecutor making shit up?

Hey, that's your job!

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-30   9:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Deckard (#0)

"Last year Harvey et al. rejected a deal that would have guaranteed them sentences of no more than three years."

Oops.

“The family is convinced that they haven’t done anything wrong,” says Phil Telfeyan, a lawyer who represents Rolland Gregg, “so pleading guilty to any federal felony is out of the question. They are good, law-abiding citizens."

Excluding that federal law which they did not abide by. As the joke goes, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   9:40:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Palmdale (#6)

"One of 'em claimed the pot was being used to cure his gout."

What are the odds that a) everyone in this family has a disease, and b) marijuana cures it?

I say lock 'em up just to keep them from infecting the general population.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   9:46:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#9)

What are the odds that a) everyone in this family has a disease, and b) marijuana cures it?

Excellent question.

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-30   9:49:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Palmdale (#6)

"That pot is a wonder drug I tells ya!"

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   9:53:20 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

The prosecution cannot present any direct evidence that the defendants sold marijuana to anyone,

They don't need to. You can prove "sale" or distribution by the way its packaged and processed and the packaging materials found at the scene.

It's case law.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-01-30   9:54:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Deckard (#3)

"For personal use in accordance with State law.
NOT distributing."

From the article: "A bit of arithmetic reveals that the total number of plants comes to just under 15 per defendant ..."

The yield on outdoor marijuana is about one pound per plant. Times 15 plants is 240 ounces or 6,720 grams.

At 1 gram per joint, that works out to 18 joints per day per person, every day of the year. (At .5 grams per joint, that's 36 joints per day.)

Yet you insist it was for personal use and not distributing?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   10:14:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GrandIsland (#12)

"You can prove "sale" or distribution by the way its packaged and processed and the packaging materials found at the scene."

Or by sheer volume. "Yer honor. These 1,000 plants were for personal use."

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   10:16:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#8)

Excluding that federal law

Which violates the rights of the citizens of that particular STATE who voted to make medical (and recreational) marijuana LEGAL.

Geesh man, is there any aspect of our lives that you do NOT want the feds to have control of?

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-01-30   10:53:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#8)

Under what clause of the Constitution may we find the authority to regulate the usage of drugs within a State? The Federal Leviathan is not Superior to the State, except in specific areas outlined in the Constitution. USSC decisions be damned, as they themselves operate outside the boundaries they are specifically forbidden to by the document they themselves have sworn to uphold.

FIJA.org....

We the People need to exercise our rights and fight before the only option left is bloody.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-01-30   11:41:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: jeremiad, misterwhite (#16)

Under what clause of the Constitution may we find the authority to regulate the usage of drugs within a State?

I'm still trying to find the part where it says fed.gov owns my (or anyone's) body.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-01-30   11:44:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Deckard (#15)

"Which violates the rights of the citizens of that particular STATE who voted to make medical (and recreational) marijuana LEGAL."

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause) establishes that the federal constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

What if the citizens of a particular state refused to abide by the Civil Rights Act? Or the second amendment?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   11:47:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: jeremiad (#16)

"Under what clause of the Constitution may we find the authority to regulate the usage of drugs within a State?"

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

Since intrastate drug activity affects the interstate drug activity that Congress is constitutionally regulating, they may regulate that intrastate activity also.

The FAA regulates interstate flights. Since intrastate flights affect the interstate flights that Congress is constitutionally regulating, they may regulate those intrastate flights also. Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to do that?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   11:53:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Deckard (#17)

"I'm still trying to find the part where it says fed.gov owns my (or anyone's) body."

The law has nothing to do with your body. It's not illegal to do drugs. Be my guest.

It IS illegal, however, to possess, sell, manufacture or distribute certain recreational drugs.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-30   11:56:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite, jeremiad, Y'ALL (#19)

jeremiad (#16) ---- "Under what clause of the Constitution may we find the authority to regulate the usage of drugs within a State?"

misterwhite --- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

The congressional power to regulate commerce among the several states does NOT give them the power to prohibit/regulate the usage of drugs WITHIN a State.

Since intrastate drug activity affects the interstate drug activity that Congress is constitutionally regulating, they may regulate that intrastate activity also.

This specious opinion is being challenged by constitutional scholars throughout the USA. It will end up in the ash heap of socialistic thought.

The FAA regulates interstate flights. Since intrastate flights affect the interstate flights that Congress is constitutionally regulating, they may regulate those intrastate flights also. Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to do that?

Regulating the flow of air traffic is totally unrelated to prohibiting the use of drugs WITHIN a State.

Get some new lines. This socialistic doctrine about 'regulating commerce' is being used as an excuse by big govt to ignore the rest of the Constitution and take control of every part of our lives and freedoms.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-30   12:58:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Palmdale (#1)

What's needed here are protestors with a sign in front of that District Court that says :

''MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS NOT A CRIME---NO VICTIM, NO CRIME, GOOGLE JURY NULLIFICTION''

TEA Party Reveler  posted on  2015-01-30   17:16:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#20)

The law has nothing to do with your body.

It IS illegal, however, to possess (drugs)

You're an idiot.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-01-30   18:37:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#21)

------ CRICKETS ON #21 ------

Isnt it amazing how whitey clams up when his socialistic opinions are challenged?

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-30   20:14:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: TEA Party Reveler (#22)

What's needed here are protestors with a sign in front of that District Court

Yeah, that'll work.

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-30   20:31:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: misterwhite (#19)

To regulate means and meant to make regular. Stop impediments, not put impediments up to free travel, or make import and export barriers, taxes and fees. If you have read how the "regulation of commerce" has dramatically changed through the illogical and Un-Constitutional method of "precedence", you would see what is historically true and how things have changed without nary an amendment. How a farmer was "regulated" from growing his own crops to feed his own animals, because it was considered to be POSSIBLE interstate commerce.

No, I don't think the FAA should regulate flights, or that the FAA should even exist. It is extra-Constitutional. It gives the Fed power over the air. Private companies could do much better and cheaper too. If you think about it, you as a person own nothing. You live, breathe, drink water or eat ONLY because the Government on either the Federal or State level allows you to. It is becoming common that you cannot even drill or dig a well to access ground water. You cannot chop down a tree on "your" property, to burn in "your" house, or cook "your" food that you harvested from "your" land. Oh sure, you can do all of the above, as long as you follow "regulations", and pay for the privilege.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-01-30   21:07:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Palmdale (#25)

Government is not the root of all evil. Government is the seat of the power of evil though.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-01-30   21:09:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: jeremiad (#26)

To regulate means and meant to make regular.

Horse manure.

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-30   22:21:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: jeremiad (#26)

"To regulate means and meant to make regular. Stop impediments ..."

First, if that's what the Founders meant then they would have worded the Commerce Clause to refect that. Something like "the power to stop impediments to commerce" or "the power to facilitate commerce". They didn't. They used "to regulate" which includes "to prohibit".

Second, as President in 1807, Jefferson used the power of the Commerce Clause to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo). How could he do that if "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" only means to stop impediments? If he was wrong to do that certainly his Secretary of State, James Madison -- who wrote the Commerce Clause -- would have told him.

"How a farmer was "regulated" from growing his own crops to feed his own animals, because it was considered to be POSSIBLE interstate commerce."

The law passed by Congress paid that farmer a higher price per bushel if he agreed to limit production. He took that money AND grew more for personal use and refused to pay the penalty. Had all farmers done this, it would have negated Congress' effort to regulate the price of wheat.

"No, I don't think the FAA should regulate flights"

They have that power. The question is, would you restrict that power to interstate only?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-31   10:10:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Palmdale (#28)

"Horse manure."

Good point. Why do I waste my time supporting my arguments with facts, cites, court cases, and history when I could simply claim "horse manure"?

I'm such an idiot.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-31   10:14:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#29)

The "regulate means to make regular" mantra is a Woozle effect.

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-31   10:18:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: jeremiad (#26)

"Oh sure, you can do all of the above, as long as you follow "regulations", and pay for the privilege."

Wow. Aren't you the helpless victim.

You do realize that the citizens, acting through their representatives, wrote those regulations, don't you? And that the citizens can repeal those regulations via their representatives or by referenda?

Let's not forget the fact that we are a self-governing nation, and that our laws and regulations reflect the will of the majority. Sure it sucks when you, personally, are not in the majority on an issue, but that's the government we have. Get a majority and change the law. That's how it works.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-31   10:22:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite (#30)

Why do I waste my time supporting my arguments with facts, cites, court cases, and history when I could simply claim "horse manure"?

Well, I have examined the origins of the "regulate means to make regular" horse manure. As tricky as it is to prove a negative, here is what I have pieced together. Randy Barnett pushes the falsehood. It appears Barnett plagiarized it from Glenn Reynolds without attribution. Glenn Reynolds' cited Regan and someone else as I recall. Run the citations down the Woozle trail to the underlying primary documentation and you wind up with the claim that it came from Samuel Johnson's dictionary. Hard document to capture. However, I went to the trouble. No such language is there. The problem is, how to prove it. You could produce screen captures showing the absense of the phrase, but the hysterics would just claim it is somewhere else in the document. Called on to produce it, they would slink away, only to renew their bogus assertion later on, without so much as a passing blush of shame.

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-31   10:31:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Palmdale (#33)

Thank you, but my post was more of a wistful, "Why can't I be satisfied by simply posting 'horse manure' like Palmdale?"

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-31   10:46:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: misterwhite (#34)

You (and to a much lesser degree me) have cast far too many pearls before the swine over the years. Let them wallow in their ignorance.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- Robert Heinlein

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-31   10:57:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Palmdale (#33)

"Called on to produce it, they would slink away, only to renew their bogus assertion later on, without so much as a passing blush of shame."

Just like Jefferson's offhand comment in a personal letter in 1802 -- "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" -- this one statement by one man is the justification for a wholly secular government and the suppression of religion (except Islam, of course. Praise Allah.) contrary to the actual words and meaning of the first amendment.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-01-31   11:21:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite, palmdale, Y'ALL (#29)

jeremiad (#16) ---- "Under what clause of the Constitution may we find the authority to regulate the usage of drugs within a State?"

misterwhite --- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

The congressional power to regulate commerce among the several states does NOT give them the power to prohibit/regulate the usage of drugs WITHIN a State.

First, if that's what the Founders meant then they would have worded the Commerce Clause to refect that. ----------- They used "to regulate" which includes "to prohibit".

Only in the socialistic mind does 'to regulate, include, to prohibit'. There is no 'power to prohibit' in our constitution..

Second, as President in 1807, Jefferson used the power of the Commerce Clause to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo). How could he do that if "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" only means to stop impediments? If he was wrong to do that certainly his Secretary of State, James Madison -- who wrote the Commerce Clause -- would have told him.

Does the President have the power to embargo all trade between the several States? Obviously he does not... An embargo/prohibition on trade is a warlike act against potential enemies. Only congress has the power to approve warlike acts. Thus, Jefferson's embargo should have had congressional approval. That Congress didn't bother to approve is just another example of ignoring the Constitution.

Since intrastate drug activity affects the interstate drug activity that Congress is constitutionally regulating, they may regulate that intrastate activity also.

This specious opinion is being challenged by constitutional scholars throughout the USA. It will end up in the ash heap of socialistic thought.

The FAA regulates interstate flights. Since intrastate flights affect the interstate flights that Congress is constitutionally regulating, they may regulate those intrastate flights also. Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to do that?

Regulating the flow of air traffic is totally unrelated to prohibiting the use of drugs WITHIN a State.

Get some new lines. This socialistic doctrine about 'regulating commerce' is being used as an excuse by big govt to ignore the rest of the Constitution and take control of every part of our lives and freedoms. It's also obvious that you two (misterwhite/palmdale) are too chickenshit to argue the issue directly with me. Typical of closet socialists....

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-31   13:37:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com