DEA losing power and they're super butt hurt about it

[Doer]

If you don't know how the rule of law works here, you can't be expected to expound on it, Ferengi.

 

[Harrekin]

If you don't know how the rule of law works here, you can't be expected to expound on it, Ferengi.

Except Im correct and youre not, as usual.

I think when someone makes a retarded claim we should call it "a Doer" from now on.

Ie.
Person 1: "I flew to the moon once"
Person 2: "Thats SUCH a Doer"

 

[Dr Kynes]

*sighs*

It was initially classified schedule 1, then the official process began. A judge issued a NON BINDING ruling stating it should be schedule 3.

The DEA said "fuck you, its schedule 1" and had to be fought in court to change it.

The DEA could EASILY reclassify cannabis schedule 3 or remove it from the list altogether, they choose not to and Obama allows it.

Anything else you say is cock-swaggle, must be hard getting schooled on your own laws by someone who's not even a citizen.

and you just touched on the argument that i have been making for some time:

The DEA CAN reschedule, but they dont wanna

HHS CAN reschedule, but they dont wanna

DOJ CAN reschedule, but eric holder dont wanna

Barry Seotoro CAN NOT reschedule, but he COULD sack the heads of HHS DEA or Justice, till he gets somebody who will, but he dont wanna.

congress COULD reschedule by drafting a law, passing it through the house and senate, and getting it signed by Barry, but they dont have the votes, and even so, it may be rejected by the courts.

the courts CAN NOT reschedule, since DEA HHS and DOJ run the scheduling outside of the law and the constitution

when congress created the CSA, and the DEA, and HHS, and the IRS and the fed, and the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the NEA, etc etc etc, they created monsters they could not control, for the sole purpose of executing powers the congress didnt want to bother with, didnt want to take the heat for, or didnt have in the first place, then they wonder why congress is now the weakest branch of govt.

 

[Doer]

It can be done, but it is the will of the States that outlawed it, not the Feds, you idiots, and the will of the States can un-do it. States run the show.

Self rule runs the States. We have 2 States legal already.

How much in IRELAND? Right.

Shut the fuck up.

 

[Doer]

Except Im correct and youre not, as usual.

I think when someone makes a retarded claim we should call it "a Doer" from now on.

Ie.
Person 1: "I flew to the moon once"
Person 2: "Thats SUCH a Doer"

That is so intelligent.

Get more stoned and stop the stupid.

 

[Harrekin]

It can be done, but it is the will of the States that outlawed it, not the Feds, you idiots, and the will of the States can un-do it. States run the show.

Self rule runs the States. We have 2 States legal already.

How much in IRELAND? Right.

Shut the fuck up.

Lol, self rule.

Keep slinging rocks Doer, you're at least 2000 miles off.

 

[abandonconflict]

Only Law and the 9th A are meaningful in the USA.

That is the point. And btw, what you know nothings call logic is not even.

^^ that is such a Doer ^^

 

[Harrekin]

^^ that is such a Doer ^^

 

[Dr Kynes]

It can be done, but it is the will of the States that outlawed it, not the Feds, you idiots, and the will of the States can un-do it. States run the show.

Self rule runs the States. We have 2 States legal already.

How much in IRELAND? Right.

Shut the fuck up.

as long as the federal statute remains in force, states are bound by it.

the official position of the DOJ the congress and the federal courts is that federal law "Trumps" state laws.

 

[Doer]

This began when the people of the self ruled States of California, New York, Florida, and Texas, all voted that cannabis be illegal in their States.

These are still the biggest players. They will say when it will be legal in the USA. Not before that, will it make a difference to Texas or any other State. They can and do make a lot of things illegal and legal, before and after the Congress as a whole will move the Federal law.

 

[ginwilly]

This began when the people of the self ruled States of California, New York, Florida, and Texas, all voted that cannabis be illegal in their States.

These are still the biggest players. They will say when it will be legal in the USA. Not before that, will it make a difference to Texas or any other State. They can and do make a lot of things illegal and legal, before and after the Congress as a whole will move the Federal law.

Doer, I agree in principle with what you say about States rule. The problem is the massive push that began in the 20th century for central planning. FDR was able to shove state's rights up the pooper and efforts have gradually expanded since.

It is still WE the people running things, but if you watched the Obamacare fiasco, you heard cries of "if you don't like our central planning plan, which central planning plan would you use?". The obvious answer of 50 laboratories figuring out what was best for them was not even a consideration. If O'care is a miserable fail, the next incremental step is even more centralized power. It's the path we've chosen as a WE the people.

Our general public tends to vote based on likability in a person, not policy. There are videos in the thousands of interviews with voters having no clue of person's policies. People were asked who they voted for, then asked if they agree with X policy. Depending on who X was attributed to, the people agreed or disagreed based on who they were told believed it. Most times it was the opposite of true. We are on the road to idiocracy. Many of our fellow americans NEED to be told what to do in their own minds. An example was the chemical weapons issue. Go back and read the Libya thread and watch people like Buck get twisted trying to agree with whatever the plan de jour of Dear Leader was spewing. Our 4th estate is so discredited our back is no longer protected.

Imagine what the story would be if Bush maintained credit that he was ending the war in Iraq but was simply following a plan already laid out by Clinton. Then we find out we still budget billions in our defense budget over there and still have thousands of armed security paid for by the defense given to Haliburton. The press says we have no boots on the ground and applaud Obama while people over there are supposed to differentiate between a military presence and a privately hired by the government military presence. I think the news would be different.

I remember daily updates on the death count in Iraq, today we pretend Afghanistan isn't happening. I remember gas prices being a daily topic on the news, now it's ignored.

I believe we were established as a collection of sovereign states, but that shipped sailed a hundred years ago.

For the Obama nutswingers who just got pissed and want to yell RACIST. Bush sucked and was incompetent. This is not related at all to this admin team. Bushney's suckitude is irrelevant to the discussion of present leadership but we can't discuss present without a reference to but Booooosh.

 

[Doer]

Then why is pot legal in two new places in the world, if not for States and self rule?

Why can San Jose collect pot tax but San Mateo will not? Self rule.

And we elect the critters that cause the mess. Any and everyone of them can be recalled if enough people vote.

So, what you see is complacency and a punt to the Fed in many cases, but it is still 100% self created by us.

No one else does it. Just us.

 

[Harrekin]

This began when the people of the self ruled States of California, New York, Florida, and Texas, all voted that cannabis be illegal in their States.

These are still the biggest players. They will say when it will be legal in the USA. Not before that, will it make a difference to Texas or any other State. They can and do make a lot of things illegal and legal, before and after the Congress as a whole will move the Federal law.

So even tho over 50% of people want cannabis completely legalised for adult consumption, you still believe the notion that the Govt represents your interests?

 

[Doer]

I said self rule and in my town I go down and buy from a store.

Can you?

Eat your words. I did not say this govt represents my interests.

We vote on everything and most votes stand. Those that don't are fought in court,

You just do NOT get what the difference is. This not a Parliamentary System. You have inter-locked not independent seats of power as we do.

A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly: the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

So, knock off the instant expert Walt Mittying about it. You cannot understand it.

WE the people, legitimze the Preisdency as States. The Presdency is Completely independent and can VETO and Pardon. YOU HAVE NO IDEA what that means. to goverance.

Ireland has forced retirement and term limits for your Supreme Court. So your Court is not independent but interlocked as well.



YOU ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THIS.

 

[ginwilly]

Then why is pot legal in two new places in the world, if not for States and self rule?

Why can San Jose collect pot tax but San Mateo will not? Self rule.

And we elect the critters that cause the mess. Any and everyone of them can be recalled if enough people vote.

So, what you see is complacency and a punt to the Fed in many cases, but it is still 100% self created by us.

No one else does it. Just us.

Not arguing that it's what we've created, but the monster we've created is far from the self-rule intended.

Two states are legal with the caveat that the feds "allow" the states to do this. They can and have cracked down when they wanted and the states had not much say. Obama is pretty apathetic towards pot which is working in our favor, if the next guy comes in and we still have the status quo as far as scheduling, there is no telling what "might" happen.

Also agree with your parliament comments. Parliamentary tricks are the precise reason we have a constitution. It's also why you have to shake your head a bit when you hear it described as living breathing document. Those people would not be able to tell us why we have one AND maintain that reasoning. Our founders would be shocked to see what we've turned the executive branch into. No, the president is NOT King.... yet.

 

[UncleBuck]

Doer, I agree in principle with what you say about States rule. The problem is the massive push that began in the 20th century for central planning. FDR was able to shove state's rights up the pooper and efforts have gradually expanded since.

It is still WE the people running things, but if you watched the Obamacare fiasco, you heard cries of "if you don't like our central planning plan, which central planning plan would you use?". The obvious answer of 50 laboratories figuring out what was best for them was not even a consideration. If O'care is a miserable fail, the next incremental step is even more centralized power. It's the path we've chosen as a WE the people.

Our general public tends to vote based on likability in a person, not policy. There are videos in the thousands of interviews with voters having no clue of person's policies. People were asked who they voted for, then asked if they agree with X policy. Depending on who X was attributed to, the people agreed or disagreed based on who they were told believed it. Most times it was the opposite of true. We are on the road to idiocracy. Many of our fellow americans NEED to be told what to do in their own minds. An example was the chemical weapons issue. Go back and read the Libya thread and watch people like Buck get twisted trying to agree with whatever the plan de jour of Dear Leader was spewing. Our 4th estate is so discredited our back is no longer protected.

Imagine what the story would be if Bush maintained credit that he was ending the war in Iraq but was simply following a plan already laid out by Clinton. Then we find out we still budget billions in our defense budget over there and still have thousands of armed security paid for by the defense given to Haliburton. The press says we have no boots on the ground and applaud Obama while people over there are supposed to differentiate between a military presence and a privately hired by the government military presence. I think the news would be different.

I remember daily updates on the death count in Iraq, today we pretend Afghanistan isn't happening. I remember gas prices being a daily topic on the news, now it's ignored.

I believe we were established as a collection of sovereign states, but that shipped sailed a hundred years ago.

For the Obama nutswingers who just got pissed and want to yell RACIST. Bush sucked and was incompetent. This is not related at all to this admin team. Bushney's suckitude is irrelevant to the discussion of present leadership but we can't discuss present without a reference to but Booooosh.

so that's what it's like to watch a republican cry.

 

[UncleBuck]

So even tho over 50% of people want cannabis completely legalised for adult consumption, you still believe the notion that the Govt represents your interests?

over 90% (closer to 95%) want comprehensive background checks. about 70% want a national gun registry, about 60% want to ban high capacity mags, and about 50% want to ban assault rifles, all of which are perfectly constitutional.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's also why you have to shake your head a bit when you hear it described as living breathing document.

yeah, i'm certain that you wouldn't mind going back to the 3/5th rule.

 

[ChesusRice]

over 90% (closer to 95%) want comprehensive background checks. about 70% want a national gun registry, about 60% want to ban high capacity mags, and about 50% want to ban assault rifles, all of which are perfectly constitutional.

Bunch of shit
If a man goes to prison and cant be trusted to own a gun when he gets out
He should of never been let out.

Problem is when you say certain free people cannot possess firearms. Then it is real easy to create laws putting everyone in that category.
You dont even have to be a felon to be stripped of your firearm rights.

 

[UncleBuck]

Bunch of shit
If a man goes to prison and cant be trusted to own a gun when he gets out
He should of never been let out.

Problem is when you say certain free people cannot possess firearms. Then it is real easy to create laws putting everyone in that category.
You dont even have to be a felon to be stripped of your firearm rights.

i was just poking the leprechaun.