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.

(Westword)   If there is a time to call your congressperson, it is now. Ask them to support the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" which would ensure that state laws regarding marijuana will not be pre-empted by the federal government   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 214
    More: PSA, Mike Coffman, Diana DeGette, federal government, state law, Controlled Substances Act, Earl Blumenauer, Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis  
•       •       •

1582 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Nov 2012 at 3:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 05:48:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.


No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.
 
2012-11-18 05:51:58 PM  

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


This. We would be stupid to do this batshiat again.
 
2012-11-18 05:52:50 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.


Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.
 
2012-11-18 05:57:09 PM  
Fark the federal govt, we don't need you in our states taking our rights away.
 
2012-11-18 06:01:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.


This libtard takes his marching orders on states' rights from this guy:

www.wired.com

/too soon?
 
2012-11-18 06:04:59 PM  

jso2897: No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.


Then how do you explain civil libertarian liberals support of gay marriage done through states? I think liberals are pro states rights when the state isn't trying to pass racist or sexist laws.
 
2012-11-18 06:16:30 PM  

actualhuman:
So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?


Because it would make the same act a crime under federal law in some states, but not in others. The 14th amendment, how does it work?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-18 06:22:12 PM  
MisterRonbo

We already have federal laws that make acts criminal or not depending on the laws of some state. The federal government is allowed to help states out by criminalizing use of interstate commerce to break state laws.
 
2012-11-18 06:25:09 PM  

lilplatinum:
But this law has nothing to do with states rights, federalism, or nullification as many people on this thread bizzarely think.


Passing a federal law allowing states to opt out of a federal law has nothing to do with federalism?

A Dark Evil Omen So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done?

Exactly what other federal criminal statutes are states allowed to opt out of?
 
2012-11-18 06:26:20 PM  
Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.
 
2012-11-18 06:34:08 PM  

chuggernaught: would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws


So slavery, segregation, Jim Crow....and legal marijuana? Not sure how weed fits into the 14th amendment.
 
2012-11-18 06:38:19 PM  

ZAZ: MisterRonbo

We already have federal laws that make acts criminal or not depending on the laws of some state. The federal government is allowed to help states out by criminalizing use of interstate commerce to break state laws.


I assume you're referring to things like the RICO act, which provide for additional charges if you've broken certain state laws. I'd like to see you come up with an actual example of an act which would be criminal under federal law in one state, but not in another - state criminal statutes are remarkably similar, particularly in the definition of terms. Apart from animal cruelty laws, I can't think of any felony crime statutes I've ever seen that had big differences across states (and I've looked up quite a few, I'm a bit of a crime buff).

If such a case actually arose, my GED in law makes me think there might be an appeals issue based on the equal protection clause. Something to ask a couple of my lawyer pals.
 
2012-11-18 06:42:17 PM  

MisterRonbo: Exactly what other federal criminal statutes are states allowed to opt out of?


...but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years,

People who have been previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in certain states would be punished less severely than people previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in other states, all other factors being equal in a subsequent prosecution under 18 USC 2251. This is determined by each state's decision on ages of consent - effectively, they're opting in or out of additional punishment for people who like to molest 17 year olds.

But, IANAL, and this is just toolin' around with google. I'm sure somebody can find a more direct example.
 
2012-11-18 06:50:35 PM  

chuggernaught: Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.


Doesn't work that way.

There is no constitutional ban on marijuana. There is a constitutional ban on slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. In the case of slavery, the 13th amendment explicitly bans it in any form except in punishment of a crime, in the case of the other two the Supreme Court has ruled them to be illegal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
 
2012-11-18 06:51:23 PM  

TheJoe03: jso2897: No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Then how do you explain civil libertarian liberals support of gay marriage done through states? I think liberals are pro states rights when the state isn't trying to pass racist or sexist laws.


It's great - and so are state laws that legalize pot - but this is not the way to fix the federal laws. the way to fix the federal laws is to fix the federal laws. Deschedule pot, repeal doma.
 
2012-11-18 06:53:16 PM  

incendi: MisterRonbo: Exactly what other federal criminal statutes are states allowed to opt out of?

...but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years,

People who have been previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in certain states would be punished less severely than people previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in other states, all other factors being equal in a subsequent prosecution under 18 USC 2251. This is determined by each state's decision on ages of consent - effectively, they're opting in or out of additional punishment for people who like to molest 17 year olds.



If that is intended to include statutory rape, then why is the word "abusive" in there? Would it not just say "sexual contact involving a minor or ward" ?
 
2012-11-18 06:55:37 PM  

Dafatone: jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.


So the only people who want legalization are those who want to take risky shortcuts to get there? I disagree. I want legalization. I don't want to take this risky shortcut to get there.
And when I see so many Fark reactionaries, who normally shiat all over pot smokers, defending this, I suspect they see the same potential in it that I do.
 
2012-11-18 07:01:12 PM  

jso2897: Dafatone: jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.

So the only people who want legalization are those who want to take risky shortcuts to get there? I disagree. I want legalization. I don't want to take this risky shortcut to get there.
And when I see so many Fark reactionaries, who normally shiat all over pot smokers, defending this, I suspect they see the same potential in it that I do.


It's a law. Laws do what they say they do. It doesn't "set a precedent" or "open pandora's box" or anything like that. It does what it says it does. Precedents and such are judicial issues.

A federal law, say, making abortion illegal in states that pass laws that make it illegal would not be changed or made more valid by this law passing. This isn't planting any ideas in conservative lawmakers' heads.

It's not a risky shortcut. It's not even a shortcut. It's a step. When's the last time a federal law moving at all towards legalization was passed? Pretty much never. So this moves us closer to legalization. More laws can always be passed later to get us there. Let's demonstrate to those who disagree that Colorado and Washington won't melt down because of legalized marijuana.
 
2012-11-18 07:05:21 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

This. Freedom is dangerous, as all good liberals know. Why, give people the ability to protest and nullify restrictive regulations that are for their own good (or for The Children) and anything might happen! Best to be safe.


The supremacy clause ensures equal constitutional freedoms across all states. Undermining it is inherently dangerous.

lilplatinum: As this is federal legislation being proposed, I think you may need to go learn what nullification actually is prior to trying to use the word in conversation.


Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

Holocaust Agnostic: more democracy, closer to the people.


Less Constitution != more democracy

Cyclometh: So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.


Did you just accuse me of being a GOP shill? Read ANYTHING I've posted on Fark and try again.
 
2012-11-18 07:07:20 PM  

Non-evil Monkey: chuggernaught: Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.

Doesn't work that way.

There is no constitutional ban on marijuana. There is a constitutional ban on slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. In the case of slavery, the 13th amendment explicitly bans it in any form except in punishment of a crime, in the case of the other two the Supreme Court has ruled them to be illegal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.


That's true. This law would not establish any right to smoke weed - indeed, rescheduling wouldn't either.
It would only get the fed out of pot enforcement, except for interdicting it's entry into the country.
It seems to me that any legislature that would pass the former would pass the latter - and that there is no chance that the legislature as it is currently composed would pass either. I'm trying really hard to see the point in this, because, emotionally, I want to believe. But I'm just not seeing it.
 
2012-11-18 07:12:31 PM  

doyner: Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification


This is not what nullification means. Nullification is a legal doctrine that states can just ignore federal law it feels is unconstitutional. This is the federal government attempting to change the scope of a law it has already passed.

There is no "Door" to be opened, congress had the power to do this 3 months ago and they will have the power to do it regardless of this bills existance (and inevitable failure to get passed).
 
2012-11-18 07:17:06 PM  

Dafatone: jso2897: Dafatone: jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.

So the only people who want legalization are those who want to take risky shortcuts to get there? I disagree. I want legalization. I don't want to take this risky shortcut to get there.
And when I see so many Fark reactionaries, who normally shiat all over pot smokers, defending this, I suspect they see the same potential in it that I do.

It's a law. Laws do what they say they do. It doesn't "set a precedent" or "open pandora's box" or anything like that. It does what it says it does. Precedents and such are judicial issues.

A federal law, say, making abortion illegal in states that pass laws that make it illegal would not be changed or made more valid by this law passing. This isn't planting any ideas in conservative lawmakers' heads.

It's not a risky shortcut. It's not even a shortcut. It's a step. When's the last time a federal law moving at all towards legalization was passed? Pretty much never. So this moves us closer to legalization. More laws can always be passed later to get us there. Let's demonstrate to those who disagree that Colorado and Washington won't melt down because of legalized marijuana.


Laws become judicial issues when they get tested in court - and the DEA would challenge this as being an impediment to their enforcement of a law that would still exist. i can't imagine why anyone thinks that a legislature that would pass this law wouldn't pass one that simply descheduled pot. The latter would not legalize pot in states that didn't want it any more than the former would. Of course, the legislature we have now will not pass either, so it's a moot point.
And the fact that society won't melt down with legal weed is already evident to anybody with half a brain, and those who don't wouldn't change because of Colorado or Washington. Medical weed is working fine here in California - but try to point that out to an anti weed zealot, and ... well, I don't need to tel you what kind of response you get. Attitudes are changing because the old are dying and the young are taking over - not because anybody is changing their minds.
 
2012-11-18 07:18:16 PM  

doyner: Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification


It would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to... modify their marijuana possession laws. That's it.

If Congress wants to pass laws applying this principle to other issues, it can do so, whether or not this law passes. It's not like the passing of this law is going to make people in Congress go "oh, I hadn't thought of that! Now I can nullify anything! Mwahaha!"

This law doesn't change anything for other issues. The idea's already out there. If this is going to inspire members of Congress to try this for other issues, it's too late.
 
2012-11-18 07:23:26 PM  

lilplatinum: This is not what nullification means. Nullification is a legal doctrine that states can just ignore federal law it feels is unconstitutional. This is the federal government attempting to change the scope of a law it has already passed.


Fine. Call it Neonullification. SCOTUS has tied the Equal Protection Clause to Nullification already (Cooper v. Aaron) and this would be begging for such a challenge.

My original statement was eluding to the danger in states carving out exceptions from federal law. In that sense, it is opening the same can of worms as nullification.
 
2012-11-18 07:24:50 PM  

Jurodan: Put another way:

If there is a time to call your congressperson, it is now. Ask them to support the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" which would ensure that state laws regarding civil rights will not be pre-empted by the federal government.

/Short answer: No.
//Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


If your really think your elected parasite is going to listen to anything you say, or read anything you write that is not on the memo field of a substantial check, you are delusional.
 
2012-11-18 07:35:11 PM  

Dafatone: doyner: Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

It would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to... modify their marijuana possession laws. That's it.

If Congress wants to pass laws applying this principle to other issues, it can do so, whether or not this law passes. It's not like the passing of this law is going to make people in Congress go "oh, I hadn't thought of that! Now I can nullify anything! Mwahaha!"

This law doesn't change anything for other issues. The idea's already out there. If this is going to inspire members of Congress to try this for other issues, it's too late.


This law will not pass the current congress. Conversely, when the makeup of Congress has changed to the point that it would, a law that simply descheduled pot would pass just as easily.
 
2012-11-18 07:38:20 PM  

Dafatone: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?


Drug use is not a right. Medical weed is still fine for those who need it and everyone else who gets a fake prescription.
 
2012-11-18 07:39:02 PM  
The really big plus to this win for legalization is with a decent length of copper wire and a big magnet we have a potentially unlimited and free energy source from Randolph Hearst spinning in his grave! Win win!
 
2012-11-18 07:50:13 PM  
Does this mean we can start a pro-pot spin off of the Democrat party called, 'The THC Party'?
 
2012-11-18 07:55:15 PM  

GAT_00: Dafatone: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?

Drug use is not a right. Medical weed is still fine for those who need it and everyone else who gets a fake prescription.


What's that have to do with having the largest prison population in the world?

Do you agree or disagree that that's a bad thing?
 
2012-11-18 07:57:20 PM  

dickfreckle: Interesting that a man who isn't pro-pot respects the laws having passed. This is sort of how I feel about abortion - personally despise it but it's none of my damn business what you do, and I'll always support that freedom of choice.

It's also refreshing that marijuana legalization is going mainstream. In our lifetimes (I'm 38), we'll all be going to the corner Walgreen's to get high. That's what we already do with booze, but no one ever got stoned and beat his wife.


Sorry, have to degree. I beat my wife when I'm stoned all the time.

Scrabble, gin rummy, cribbage you name it. She just can't focus when she's high. >
 
2012-11-18 08:07:47 PM  

wongway: Lochsteppe: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals Everyone needs to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.

Ah, so the Dem-o-rat war on women has a new life?


Hi winterwhile.
 
2012-11-18 08:28:01 PM  
DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!
 
2012-11-18 08:41:20 PM  

SharkInfested: DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!


Ah DC citizen

Another fine run city, by dem-o-rats, get your patronage job here.

26K for each kid for school, murder rate sky high... what more do you want? A free Obama Phone as well?
 
2012-11-18 08:55:57 PM  
Um, no. States should not be able to supersede federal law. I will, hover, write to the president asking that we suspend the "War on Drugs" because it's a huge waste of time and lives.
 
2012-11-18 09:05:06 PM  

Mrbogey: Well since we're not using the Tenth Amendment to the USC, we may as well get a new one.


Bing.
 
2012-11-18 09:21:24 PM  

wongway: SharkInfested: DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!

Ah DC citizen

Another fine run city, by dem-o-rats, get your patronage job here.

26K for each kid for school, murder rate sky high... what more do you want? A free Obama Phone as well?


If DC is so bad, why does every right wing cocksucker in the country want me to send him there?
 
2012-11-18 09:27:04 PM  

vrax: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Token Anarchist: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance

Yep. Who says the Democrats don't love Big Business?

Well, then maybe the cons should have STFU and let them go single payer instead of fighting for compromise on their lame vision of Obamacare and then not voting for what they had fought for. Obamacare is what the Republicans wanted, so fark them and fark you.


weknowmemes.com
 
2012-11-18 09:27:48 PM  
Doesn't Amendment X take care of this sort of thing?
 
2012-11-18 09:28:22 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Interesting thread where the libs take off their little masks.....

Did your parents have any children they were proud of, or just you?


Name calling? Really? That all you got Poindexter? LOL!!!!
 
2012-11-18 09:30:53 PM  

doyner: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

This. Freedom is dangerous, as all good liberals know. Why, give people the ability to protest and nullify restrictive regulations that are for their own good (or for The Children) and anything might happen! Best to be safe.

The supremacy clause ensures equal constitutional freedoms across all states. Undermining it is inherently dangerous.

lilplatinum: As this is federal legislation being proposed, I think you may need to go learn what nullification actually is prior to trying to use the word in conversation.

Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

Holocaust Agnostic: more democracy, closer to the people.

Less Constitution != more democracy

Cyclometh: So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.

Did you just accuse me of being a GOP shill? Read ANYTHING I've posted on Fark and try again.


This is so farking funny I almost can't stand it. The Fark Libs are now Constitutionalists! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO!
 
2012-11-18 09:40:26 PM  

dickfreckle: It's also refreshing that marijuana legalization is going mainstream. In our lifetimes (I'm 38), we'll all be going to the corner Walgreen's to get high. That's what we already do with booze, but no one ever got stoned and beat his wife.


Goddamn right. I've known a number of cops that were pro-legalization of weed. They all said something similar. [paraphrased and combined] "I've never seen someone beat their wife or children while on pot. I've never seen someone stab a random person over a minor argument while on pot. I've never seen someone OD on pot. The only tragic results of pot have been more of the fact that it's illegal, and some unscrupulous people will take advantage of the fact that people want it."
 
2012-11-18 09:42:24 PM  
Funny, when we Californians voted against gay marriage you people didn't like state law or respect the voters will but now state law is sooooooooooo important. Hypocrisy.
 
2012-11-18 09:45:47 PM  

dickfreckle: Interesting that a man who isn't pro-pot respects the laws having passed. This is sort of how I feel about abortion - personally despise it but it's none of my damn business what you do, and I'll always support that freedom of choice.

It's also refreshing that marijuana legalization is going mainstream. In our lifetimes (I'm 38), we'll all be going to the corner Walgreen's to get high. That's what we already do with booze, but no one ever got stoned and beat his wife.




This and this.
It would be great if all pregnancies occured under ideal circumstances but they rarely do, and as difficult and undesirable as abortions are to most people, I believe that it always has to be the woman's right to choose.
The hipocrisy of marijuana prohibition cannot be overstated in a society where conservatives scream bloody murder at the mere suggestion of not being a able to buy an AK-47 24 hours a day while drunk and on crack but yet some right-wing douchebag congressman or sherriff can blather on about the evils of marijuana and then go to happy hour and get a lap dance.
 
2012-11-18 10:11:34 PM  

wongway: SharkInfested: DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!

Ah DC citizen

Another fine run city, by dem-o-rats, get your patronage job here.

26K for each kid for school, murder rate sky high... what more do you want? A free Obama Phone as well?


Are you too embarrassed to use your old account?
You didn't promise to cut your penis off if Obama won, did you? Because some of that has been going around.
 
2012-11-18 10:22:22 PM  

Cyclometh: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.


That's how the've been doing it for awhile now, yes.
 
2012-11-18 10:23:03 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Snapper Carr: . If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

But that's not what's going on here! There's no nullification! This is a federal law amending a federal law to delegate certain authority to the states! This is a nullification concern in the same way - once again - the state exchanges in ACA are a nullification concern, ie in no possible way.


This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law


Christ on a Triscuit. Do you morons get it now?
 
2012-11-18 10:30:09 PM  

Mija: Funny, when we Californians voted against gay marriage you people didn't like state law or respect the voters will but now state law is sooooooooooo important. Hypocrisy.


Funny, the Mormons money-bombed for bigotry. Also, bigotry. Please explain how out of state Mormons did not skew that vote, or how the black component of the vote for marriage inequality was not in itself hypocritical. Let's not gloss over nuance here.
 
2012-11-18 10:36:27 PM  
This is possibly the dumbest thread I've ever read.
 
2012-11-18 10:40:47 PM  

jso2897: the DEA needs to deschedule pot - period.


Sooner the better.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report