Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   Conservatives' hope for repealing Obamacare now rests on whether or not the DEA stops arresting people in Colorado and Washington   (americanthinker.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, obamacare, Colorado, DEA, nullification, supremacy clause, consent of the governed, imposition, ndaa  
•       •       •

1744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:51 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 09:52:35 AM  
Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?
 
2012-11-09 09:52:42 AM  
that is quite the quandary for authoritarian Republicans though - kill Obamacare but legalize cannabis? I think your average GOP control freak would rather rip out his own liver than see cannabis EVER be legalized in this country. EVEN IF it meant that by some weird bizzaro world reasoning it meant that they could repeal Obamacare, the GOP wouldn't make that deal. they *hate* to see people learn that cannabis isn't harmful.
 
2012-11-09 09:53:10 AM  
I'm sure it's a well reasoned argument.
 
2012-11-09 09:53:39 AM  
Though still woefully and willfully ignorant, AmericanDrinker is alluding to a valid point.........that pretty much everyone who followed ballot measures state by state already knew about.
 
2012-11-09 09:54:08 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?


oh, um...basically, the argument is that if states get to ignore federal cannabis laws then states should also be able to opt out of Obamacare. Because cannabis and health care are exactly the same things and socialisms Obama 1000 years of darkness blah blah blah.
 
2012-11-09 09:54:53 AM  

Weaver95: that is quite the quandary for authoritarian Republicans though - kill Obamacare but legalize cannabis? I think your average GOP control freak would rather rip out his own liver than see cannabis EVER be legalized in this country. EVEN IF it meant that by some weird bizzaro world reasoning it meant that they could repeal Obamacare, the GOP wouldn't make that deal. they *hate* to see people learn that cannabis isn't harmful.


The GOP only likes state rights when it means that they can get away with legislating racism.
 
2012-11-09 09:55:31 AM  

Citrate1007: Weaver95: that is quite the quandary for authoritarian Republicans though - kill Obamacare but legalize cannabis? I think your average GOP control freak would rather rip out his own liver than see cannabis EVER be legalized in this country. EVEN IF it meant that by some weird bizzaro world reasoning it meant that they could repeal Obamacare, the GOP wouldn't make that deal. they *hate* to see people learn that cannabis isn't harmful.

The GOP only likes state rights when it means that they can get away with legislating racism.


And banning abortion.
 
2012-11-09 09:56:31 AM  

Weaver95: Comic Book Guy: Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?

oh, um...basically, the argument is that if states get to ignore federal cannabis laws then states should also be able to opt out of Obamacare. Because cannabis and health care are exactly the same things and socialisms Obama 1000 years of darkness blah blah blah.


Actually one of the less derpy articles from the Stinker.
 
2012-11-09 09:57:06 AM  
"Governments are instituted among Men Corporations, deriving their just powers from the consent distraction of the governed..." 

Must be a misprint in the Declaration.
 
2012-11-09 09:58:14 AM  
American Thinker
Stay away from me
American Thinker
Momma let me be
 
2012-11-09 09:58:27 AM  

Comic Book Guy: Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?


Basically they're erroneously assuming that the DOJ will just completely ignore the fact that these two states now allow recreational marijuana use and set a precedent allowing states to ignore any federal law they want.

Because people who write for AT are stupid.

In reality, of course, if this leads to a federal overturning of MJ prohibition it will be because the DOJ and the states will work together to test out how it goes before the actual federal law is eventually overturned allowing each state to then make its own decision on the matter.
 
2012-11-09 09:58:46 AM  
Obamacare (yes, we own that term now, thanks for all your efforts) is becoming a new get out the base boogey man like abortion. It's never going away, it's far too valuable a lever to rile up rubes.
 
2012-11-09 10:03:50 AM  
So they are conveniently forgetting how many decades it took to legalize pot? Are they going to try to get the states who voted for Obama to vote to repeal the health care reform that they are using to get - you know - healthcare?

I suppose they might get Alabama to vote to repeal it. Gonna be a tough sell.
 
2012-11-09 10:04:04 AM  
One thing overlooked in the uproar surrounding the election is the nullification of federal narcotics law in Washington state and Colorado.

I see someone doesn't know the meaning of the word "nullify".
 
2012-11-09 10:06:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Obamacare (yes, we own that term now, thanks for all your efforts) is becoming a new get out the base boogey man like abortion. It's never going away, it's far too valuable a lever to rile up rubes.


I'm agreeing with this more and more. You can't roll the whole thing back, you'll piss off way to many people that are already directly benefiting. It truly has become the new abortion.
 
2012-11-09 10:07:13 AM  
The article does (surprisingly) raise some valid points. If voters in Colorado and Washington can "nullify" the federal prohibition on marijuana, then voters in Alabama or Idaho could be able to do the same to Obamacare, the Civil Rights Act, etc. . .

/solution: legalize pot on the federal level
 
2012-11-09 10:07:53 AM  

Weaver95: that is quite the quandary for authoritarian Republicans though - kill Obamacare but legalize cannabis? I think your average GOP control freak would rather rip out his own liver than see cannabis EVER be legalized in this country. EVEN IF it meant that by some weird bizzaro world reasoning it meant that they could repeal Obamacare, the GOP wouldn't make that deal. they *hate* to see people learn that cannabis isn't harmful.


even the most hard-core conservatives (way way way right) are pro-legal mary-jane.
 
2012-11-09 10:08:27 AM  

Skeptos: The article does (surprisingly) raise some valid points. If voters in Colorado and Washington can "nullify" the federal prohibition on marijuana, then voters in Alabama or Idaho could be able to do the same to Obamacare, the Civil Rights Act, etc. . .

/solution: legalize pot on the federal level


It'll happen eventually but not before a great many states have followed Washington's and Colorado's lead.
 
2012-11-09 10:08:47 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Obamacare (yes, we own that term now, thanks for all your efforts) is becoming a new get out the base boogey man like abortion. It's never going away, it's far too valuable a lever to rile up rubes.


I dunno about that. Abortion works as a red meat issue because some people genuinely believe abortion is a bad thing. No one believes healthcare is a bad thing. Sure you can make it sound like a pact with teh debbil - but it really isnt. And as more and more baby-boomers need elder-care they are going to care more about getting their meds than anything else.
 
2012-11-09 10:09:06 AM  
Has the DEA been arresting people for possession of an ounce or less?
 
2012-11-09 10:09:33 AM  
So why weren't there ballot measures in individual states to negate both obamacare and abortion?

Because the American public want both.
 
2012-11-09 10:09:49 AM  

Kit Fister: even the most hard-core conservatives (way way way right) are pro-legal mary-jane.


None of the ones I talk to are. In fact they were laughing about how the cops are "going to crack those druggies' skulls when they light up".
 
2012-11-09 10:09:54 AM  

Kit Fister: Weaver95: that is quite the quandary for authoritarian Republicans though - kill Obamacare but legalize cannabis? I think your average GOP control freak would rather rip out his own liver than see cannabis EVER be legalized in this country. EVEN IF it meant that by some weird bizzaro world reasoning it meant that they could repeal Obamacare, the GOP wouldn't make that deal. they *hate* to see people learn that cannabis isn't harmful.

even the most hard-core conservatives (way way way right) are pro-legal mary-jane.


Hard right authoritarian conservatives might just be a tad different than hard right libertarian conservatives

Currently in charge of the GOP - Authoritarian conservatives hellbent on enforcing their morality on the rest of us.
 
2012-11-09 10:09:58 AM  
Ahh, the right wing - Federalists when it is convenient for their arguments.
 
2012-11-09 10:10:06 AM  

theknuckler_33: One thing overlooked in the uproar surrounding the election is the nullification of federal narcotics law in Washington state and Colorado.

I see someone doesn't know the meaning of the word "nullify".


Exactly.

The federal law is not nullified. It trumps state law. If the DOJ and DEA desire, they can descend upon Colorado and Washington and harsh everyone's buzz pretty damn fast.

Now, if the federal government makes an active decision to decriminalize marijuana and "leave the legalization issue up to the states," then Washington and Colorado are already one step ahead of everybody else.
 
2012-11-09 10:10:37 AM  

Weaver95: Comic Book Guy: Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?

oh, um...basically, the argument is that if states get to ignore federal cannabis laws then states should also be able to opt out of Obamacare. Because cannabis and health care are exactly the same things and socialisms Obama 1000 years of darkness blah blah blah.


...But the principle of nullification is a real one. Jury nullification, for example, is a principle that can be used to acquit a person even if they're "Guilty", if the jury doesn't believe the law is just.

So, what's the problem?
 
2012-11-09 10:10:58 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Obamacare (yes, we own that term now, thanks for all your efforts) is becoming a new get out the base boogey man like abortion. It's never going away, it's far too valuable a lever to rile up rubes.


Nah. In a generation it will become as taken-for-granted a part if the social safety net a Medicare and Social Security.

Future Republican politicians will compete with each other to prove how much they will protect Obamacare, and they'll use it to attack Democrats, the way that Romney attacked Obama for supposedly cutting $700 million from Medicare.

It's over, the GOP has lost this issue. Obamacare is going to be another sacred cow, and Republicans aren't going to be able to touch it lest they face popular backlash. Only fringe libertarians, the same cranks who now want to privatize SS and Medicare, are going to suggest repealing Obamacare going forward.
 
2012-11-09 10:11:42 AM  
They are discussing Nullification, which was first rejected by the USSC in Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) and then explicitly rejected in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), which by the way was a 9-1 decision. They can cite the Federalist papers until their fingers bleed, but the Supreme Court has already spoken definitively on the matter.
 
2012-11-09 10:11:53 AM  

quickdraw: No one believes healthcare is a bad thing.


No one?
 
2012-11-09 10:13:19 AM  
Here's what's going to happen, the DOJ will make a statement saying "federal law trumps state law and it will be enforced." As soon as business start popping up the DEA will drop the hammer on them, aggressively. They'll then get questions about medical cannabis and they'll hem and haw before changing the subject.
 
2012-11-09 10:14:00 AM  

Weaver95: Comic Book Guy: Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?

oh, um...basically, the argument is that if states get to ignore federal cannabis laws then states should also be able to opt out of Obamacare. Because cannabis and health care are exactly the same things and socialisms Obama 1000 years of darkness blah blah blah.


Here's the problem with that argument: In the sale of cannabis, neither seller nor buyer wants government intervention in the transaction. So neither party is going to be interested in engaging the government. Only a uninvolved third party wants government intervention. In the case of insurance, the transaction is much more involved (at least three parties) and one of the parties involved in the transaction wants government intervention.

So states can get away with ignoring Federal law on drug sales. They just do nothing, or run around saying they're doing something while not actually doing anything. With insurance, one party is going to say "Hey judge, gimme a court order 'cause this idiot isn't giving me what I'm due". Self interest enforces the ACA. Blue shirted thuggery overcoming secrecy has to enforce drug laws.

So lack of drug law enforcement will be impossible to overcome (really, how are you going to sue for lack of enforcement when nobody even tells you there was an infraction?) while failure to enforce ACA provisions will result in a good number of that state's citizens getting very rich.
 
2012-11-09 10:14:08 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Only fringe libertarians, the same cranks who now want to privatize SS and Medicare


They managed to get themselves a president that pushed for the nation do exactly that. They're not so fringe in that circle.
 
2012-11-09 10:14:14 AM  
This "nullification" idea runs directly in the face of federal preemption, which has been recognized by the SCOTUS since Gibbons v. Odgen (1824).
 
2012-11-09 10:15:12 AM  

meat0918: Kit Fister: Weaver95: that is quite the quandary for authoritarian Republicans though - kill Obamacare but legalize cannabis? I think your average GOP control freak would rather rip out his own liver than see cannabis EVER be legalized in this country. EVEN IF it meant that by some weird bizzaro world reasoning it meant that they could repeal Obamacare, the GOP wouldn't make that deal. they *hate* to see people learn that cannabis isn't harmful.

even the most hard-core conservatives (way way way right) are pro-legal mary-jane.

Hard right authoritarian conservatives might just be a tad different than hard right libertarian conservatives

Currently in charge of the GOP - Authoritarian conservatives hellbent on enforcing their morality on the rest of us.


Fair enough, the conservatives i hang out with are the type that are more about going waayy wayyy against the standard Republican talking points (gay marriage? Why should the government even be a part of determining what constitutes a 'marriage'? Make it a civil union for everyone, and leave 'marriage' and any of the religious connotations and trappings to the religious establishment to get their panties in a knot over; why should the government havethe right to legislate what people can and cannot do to/with/in their own bodies?; etc. etc.).

They're also tangentially touching on other subjects, like defense spending reductions based on not invading/having a presence in every goddamn country/region on earth, weighting free trade to favor american jobs and goods, etc...
 
2012-11-09 10:15:43 AM  

MadHatter500: Weaver95: Comic Book Guy: Yeah, still not clicking on American Derper. Anyone care to post the tl;dr?

oh, um...basically, the argument is that if states get to ignore federal cannabis laws then states should also be able to opt out of Obamacare. Because cannabis and health care are exactly the same things and socialisms Obama 1000 years of darkness blah blah blah.

Here's the problem with that argument: In the sale of cannabis, neither seller nor buyer wants government intervention in the transaction. So neither party is going to be interested in engaging the government. Only a uninvolved third party wants government intervention. In the case of insurance, the transaction is much more involved (at least three parties) and one of the parties involved in the transaction wants government intervention.

So states can get away with ignoring Federal law on drug sales. They just do nothing, or run around saying they're doing something while not actually doing anything. With insurance, one party is going to say "Hey judge, gimme a court order 'cause this idiot isn't giving me what I'm due". Self interest enforces the ACA. Blue shirted thuggery overcoming secrecy has to enforce drug laws.

So lack of drug law enforcement will be impossible to overcome (really, how are you going to sue for lack of enforcement when nobody even tells you there was an infraction?) while failure to enforce ACA provisions will result in a good number of that state's citizens getting very rich.


What should be interesting is if the DEA will try to confiscate any tax money from the state that was earned from the sale of marijuana.

Or am I behind on the times and they have already tried to do this but failed?
 
2012-11-09 10:15:59 AM  
Well, they can stop worrying, because the DEA will not let the pot stuff stand. Democrats are afraid of looking weak on drugs, just like they are afraid of looking weak on terror and thus ramp-up extrajudicial murders to prove the point.
 
2012-11-09 10:18:09 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Kit Fister: even the most hard-core conservatives (way way way right) are pro-legal mary-jane.

None of the ones I talk to are. In fact they were laughing about how the cops are "going to crack those druggies' skulls when they light up".


I think this could be a unifying issue.

Both sides are high.
 
2012-11-09 10:19:18 AM  

tarheel07: This "nullification" idea runs directly in the face of federal preemption, which has been recognized by the SCOTUS since Gibbons v. Odgen (1824).


So are we against nullification, and therefore against states passing laws legalizing pot even though the feds have ultimately said it's illegal? Or are we pro-legalization through any means that works?

I'm confused.
 
2012-11-09 10:20:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Doc Daneeka: Only fringe libertarians, the same cranks who now want to privatize SS and Medicare

They managed to get themselves a president that pushed for the nation do exactly that. They're not so fringe in that circle.


And look how quickly and thoroughly Dubya was shot down when he even suggested privatizing SS in his second term.

We're talking about a president who was able to enact pretty much every other item on his agenda at will. Start wars of choice, sweeping new national security measures, huge expansion of executive power, deregulation if financial sector, tax cuts, etc. And yet when he tried to touch SS, he was immediately and thoroughly rebuffed, by the Congress and by the public.

It's a political nonstarter.
 
2012-11-09 10:22:03 AM  
Ah, the American Thinker: derp with SAT words.

I was afraid that they would all vanish after the election like the Eaters of the Dead in the 13th warrior.
 
2012-11-09 10:22:33 AM  
How do you report income to the IRS on a federally banned substance?

One way or another....fed trumps state.

Do the people who think a state can ignore federal law in regards to marijuana believe a state can enact its own immigration law/policy.....or are people abandoning their principles for self serving interest in getting stoned?
 
2012-11-09 10:25:19 AM  
this works the other way too. My first thought as a liberal was "awesome, the people are speaking out that we shouldn't be putting people in jail for a plant. Maybe this will be a step in the right direction for reforming the war on drugs and our broken criminal justice system." Then I saw some states were voting to opt out of the ACA, and it made me rethink my position. As much as I think it's stupid to ruin kid's live when they get caught with some pot, it doesn't seem consistent in my reasoning to pick a states' rights argument out of convenience. I've never been a states' rights guy in the past (mostly because I live in a backward state filled with crazy state politicians) so it doesn't seem right I latch onto it because I agree with the outcome. I'm genuinely torn on this one.

/yay for my Washington & Colorado friends
 
2012-11-09 10:25:58 AM  

Giltric: How do you report income to the IRS on a federally banned substance?


Ask the medical cannabis dispensaries that have been operating for years, or the brothels in Nevada.
 
2012-11-09 10:29:11 AM  
Speaking of Obamacare, things just keep getting lovelier with health care post reform. After a few years of massive rate increases and coverage decreases(including prescription drugs), now both my employer and my wife's employer are dropping most of our options because they're too expensive(and we work for Fortune 500s). All I've got left is an HSA and the base PPO. No more HMO for managed costs, or high end PPO for low deductibles. I'd hate to be a sick person or older person in the workforce right now. I thought that this was what health care reform was supposed to fix.
 
2012-11-09 10:29:54 AM  

Giltric: How do you report income to the IRS on a federally banned substance?

One way or another....fed trumps state.

Do the people who think a state can ignore federal law in regards to marijuana believe a state can enact its own immigration law/policy.....or are people abandoning their principles for self serving interest in getting stoned?


It's an interesting thought. Unfortunately, to allow the legal MJ laws to stand and go through, they have to admit that other state activities and attempts at nullifying federal law is also valid.
 
2012-11-09 10:30:55 AM  

Giltric: How do you report income to the IRS on a federally banned substance?

One way or another....fed trumps state.

Do the people who think a state can ignore federal law in regards to marijuana believe a state can enact its own immigration law/policy.....or are people abandoning their principles for self serving interest in getting stoned?



i consider it pushing the issue - nothing else is lighting a fire under congressional ass to address the federal law. enough states have medical and now full on legalization that it's amazing it hasn't happened yet...or even been an issue anywhere on the legislative radar.
 
2012-11-09 10:31:07 AM  

Kit Fister: tarheel07: This "nullification" idea runs directly in the face of federal preemption, which has been recognized by the SCOTUS since Gibbons v. Odgen (1824).

So are we against nullification, and therefore against states passing laws legalizing pot even though the feds have ultimately said it's illegal? Or are we pro-legalization through any means that works?

I'm confused.


This "nullifcation" idea only works when the federal government realizes that the states either are more capable at legislating a certain arena or are so vastly opposed to the federal government's legislation that the legislation is overturned via Congress' repeal or judicial order.

But the states can't outright nullify federal law in the same way that a jury of your peers can avoid applying criminal law in order to acquit you (i.e., jury nullification).
 
2012-11-09 10:33:23 AM  

Cletus C.: Has the DEA been arresting people for possession of an ounce or less?


Not remotely. DEA has less than 5000 agents, which includes all of their leadership, UCs, and training staff. And their caseload has been drifting towards prescription abuse by licensed medical personnel during the last few years. When it comes to illegal drugs, they're only interested in major distribution networks (Mexican cartels, etc). Local and state law enforcement have always been the ones handling the small cases. These new laws are basically saying "Yes, it's still a federal crime, but we're not going to have our local patrol officers and deputy sheriffs spend time or money on this matter."

That's why this article makes no sense. DEA isn't going to leave these states... there are still prescription abusers, meth labs, heroin and coke smugglers, high-quantity cannabis traffickers to deal with. All they have to do is release a few official statements against these new laws and continue operations as normal.
 
2012-11-09 10:34:09 AM  

heap: nothing else is lighting a fire under congressional ass to address the federal law. enough states have medical and now full on legalization that it's amazing it hasn't happened yet...or even been an issue anywhere on the legislative radar.


This president has been pretty aggressive in going after dispensaries in CA.
 
2012-11-09 10:34:50 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: quickdraw: No one believes healthcare is a bad thing.

No one?


No one. They may quibble over what kind of healthcare is best but everyone recognizes that health is a desirable thing for themselves.

True story - Im currently a Ph.D. student studying gerontology and affordable housing. One of my textbooks referred to the aging of the boomer population as the "Senior Tsunami." The imagery - is disturbing. But the reality is that over 25% of our population is going to need increasing amounts of healthcare over the next 20 years. In ten years 60% of the population will be over 65.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report