DEA chiefs urge Obama to nullify Washington and Colorado pot laws

kinetic said:
Ok here's an example, states that didn't want to lower the bac to .08% for dwi were forced to do so by the feds. The feds simply told these states that their budgets for their infastructure, dpw's etc was going to be severly impacted by the withholding of federal money unless they changed their laws. It was .10 in my state but the feds forced the .08 thus changing the states law.
Click to expand...

You need to get your facts straight. It is still up to the states to set their own BAC standard but in October of 2000 Clintons signed The Transportation Appropriation Bill which essentially blackmails states into changing their BAC to .08 or lose much of their federal highway money. That is a big difference from a federal law that sets a states BAC law but thanks for trying.
 
you're splitting hairs steve, the feds blackmail essentially changes the states choice. The feds dictated to the states .08, which states are choosing a higher bac level? None.
 
kinetic said:
you're splitting hairs steve, the feds blackmail essentially changes the states choice. The feds dictated to the states .08, which states are choosing a higher bac level? None.
Click to expand...
That is fine but Feds cant regulate state law. Read your constitution.
 
When has nullification worked out well for a state? Whiskey Rebellion went to shit as soon as the feds step'd in and in South Carolina nullification under Jackson's office was pretty much a even break for both state and fed levels. Fed law trumps state law that's all there is to it.
 
I didnt say fed law doesnt trump state law. We are seeing it now in California with the feds shutting down collectives and dispensaries but that still has not changed the fact that California has legal weed. The reason why they can have legal weed is because the feds cant dictate state law. You can word it any way you want but that is the facts.
 
The feds cant dictate state law but they can enforce federal law. Justification for enforcement is based on the fact the constitution states that any state law contrary to federal law are "without affect". So essentially the contradiction between state law and the controlled substance act and other anti marihuana/drug legislation outlaws both medical and recreational. The law literally doesn't exist it isnt real through the looking glass of the feds. Now if there was no law on the books on the federal level and then California gave a legal system for dealing with weed then you'd be correct but once the federal government has a law that says the opposite, outlawing possession, manufacturing and so on. That state law then ceases to have any concrete power against federal enforcement .
 
I understand you are trying to sound intelligent but you are working against yourself. I am talking about the feds regulating state law and you are talking about feds enforcing federal law in individual states. I am done arguing my point with you because you arent even in the same ball park. The fact of the matter is the feds cannot dictate state laws. period the end.
 
kinetic said:
Ok here's an example, states that didn't want to lower the bac to .08% for dwi were forced to do so by the feds. The feds simply told these states that their budgets for their infastructure, dpw's etc was going to be severly impacted by the withholding of federal money unless they changed their laws. It was .10 in my state but the feds forced the .08 thus changing the states law.
Click to expand...
Yep, they also did the same thing with sentencing laws also.
 
bigv1976 said:
I understand you are trying to sound intelligent but you are working against yourself. I am talking about the feds regulating state law and you are talking about feds enforcing federal law in individual states. I am done arguing my point with you because you arent even in the same ball park. The fact of the matter is the feds cannot dictate state laws. period the end.
Click to expand...



Your not hibby with my jibby V


What do you think Brown v. Board of Education was about? That was most definitely Feds dictating State law.

and V we've been cool before so I dont know why your trying to take shot's at my intelligence.



See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

"Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it"

 
Both Co. and Wa. had contingency plans in place to handle this. I would encourage people in both states to wright to your rep. or Gov. to let them know we have not changed our minds. I see there are 8 other states that will be voting soon. Hang in there we will over come.

This is how Prohibition ended one city one county one state at a time until the feds gave up.
 
see4 said:
A "home" of liars?
Click to expand...

130630642466.jpg
 
Apomixis said:
Won't change anything in my life. They can file lawsuits, they can decriminalize it, they can legalize it, and my life will remain unchanged.
Fuck those politicians now and fuck them forever. LOL Hatehatehatehatehate
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly, I don't need mommy and daddy telling me what what I can and can not do.
 
kinetic said:
Ok here's an example, states that didn't want to lower the bac to .08% for dwi were forced to do so by the feds. The feds simply told these states that their budgets for their infastructure, dpw's etc was going to be severly impacted by the withholding of federal money unless they changed their laws. It was .10 in my state but the feds forced the .08 thus changing the states law.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened here with Jan Brewer and Obamacare... She sucks dick for billions of dollars apparently...
 
I hope Obama "caves." It'll be funny watching the proletariat still worship their messiah when he becomes their oppressor. I have no idea what excuses they'll come up with. It'll be hilarious nonetheless.
 
Did we honestly think it was going to be this easy?

If Holder and Obama are unwilling to ban drone killing within the US it's no guarentte they won't nullify or at least greatly restrict the new state marijuana laws in the two states. Also remember this is Obama's second term, he can go either way on any issue with little to no negative consequences to him, but any decisions he makes will greatly effect his party and I can guarantee you even though this issue is mostly ignored by politicians most are definitely talking about this under the radar.

The outcome is a flip of the coin, anyone that says it will go one way or the other is making a guess, heads or tails?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top