View Single Post
Old January 12, 2013, 05:10 PM   #27
Junior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Posts: 4
So your a lawyer? What form of law do you practice?

Evidence: lets see, everything revolves around the supremacy clause which was basically over written by the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Therefore, all laws created by the federal government, not given authority by the Constitution, are, by default, un-constitutional. Therefore, each State has the obligation to refuse to enforce said law, as well as procecute any federal employee whom tries to enforce said law.
I will agree, there is a problem with this. The States have, for years, given in to the federal authority. To the point that there is a precedence created over the years. This is difficult, if not nearly impossible to erase. But not completely impossible. (More on this later)

What exactly does article II have to do with this? An explanation would be great here as I have my Constitution directly in front of me. Sorry for my ignorance, you must have ment article III. Either way, this power has not been given to the federal government. See the 10th amendment! (People easily forget that the first nine amendments are amendments the fed was banned from delegating and the 10th amendment reaffirmed that!) "See ratification debates" The supremacy clause can only be used if said authority is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. None of the first 10 amendments have been given to the fed through Constitutional amendment. Why do you think they are trying to pass the small arms treaty?

Good call on this case you gave me! This case shows a people content to be slave, as is the case with the California State legislature, as well as many, not all, people living in this State.
Case in point, the only reason the fed was involved was taxes. Had the persons in this case been buying the drug instead of growing it, none of this would have happened. As you see now, numerous States have legalized marijuana. The fed said they will not interfere. Why?
Also, this shows the gross misconseption of the commerce clause.
Article I Section 8, 2nd enumerated power; "To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The key word here being "among". If taken under original intent, this means between. Between the States! Not over the States as we see today.

Of course, my Constitutional studies are a bit rusty and typing is difficult with one arm. Feel free to reply back. I need a good debate.
As well, I did not mean to insult you. You seem like a knowledgeable person. In my humble opinion, most people have been mislead to believe the fed as the ultimate power in "These united States". This was far from the case. Early on anyway.
Raven1776 is offline  
Page generated in 0.03315 seconds with 7 queries