Posted on 01/02/2013 7:47:05 AM PST by Kaslin
That's incorrect. Pot was legalized, and that "whetted their appetite to outlaw firearms" (both in Colorado, one immediately after the other).
Rebel, folks. Pot is a tool of slavery. Get off of the stuff, and get off of the plantation. Let the bipartisan, socialist, political/regulator bosses, their rotten kids and their pocket authorities keep doing it without you.
I took you at your word based on what you wrote. Thanks for explaining that prudent people shouldn’t do that.
There is also nothing conservative about the abuse of federal power demonstrated here. The persons in question are obeying state law. The 10th Amendment delegates to the states powers to regulate such. The feds are usurping those powers. Whether or not you approve of the activity in question should be immaterial.
There is nothing ‘conservative’ about the the drug war either.
Seriously two posts with CAPS!!!!!!
And I am the dolt - hahahahahhahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!
And there is nothing conservatives with people who make blanket and ignorant comments.
Paul Ryan Talks Medical Marijuana Legalization: ‘Let the States Decide’
i do not know what raich or winward is, please explain..
ginberg was in the MAJORITY, and did not write the opinion.. what she says verbally means nothing..
the 4 conservatives agreed with what roberts wrote pertaining to this.. i will hold that ginsberg was disgusted with this ruling, because that old communist knew the jig was up.. the silence from the libs on the court and in congress over this ruling speaks volumes to me..
your next statement is just plain false.. this bill was written years ago by people that are not quite as dumb as the limbaugh, hannity, levin people would lead you to believe, after all, they have been doing this for over 80 years and getting away with it..this bill passed due to prior case law and rulings, with this ruling it would never pass again...
I agree with your last statement, however, the courts can and have been packed with activists for over 80 years.. if the people continue to support and elect activists, you will get activist courts, this is what roberts was saying, and guess what just happened??????
this site is filled with conservatives, however, roberts is not a conservative. He is a federalist, and a member of the federalist society.
This ruling, unpopular as it was, was his best chance to get a majority/minority concurrance on strictly constitutional issues. His plan, as I see it, was that the people would not elect a hard core communist a second time.
The people failed. So called conservatives, evangelicals, and small l libertarians just stayed home in droves, giving us communist rule.
Roberts handed us, on a silver platter, the tools necessary to fight and defeat the socialist / communist on their own playing field.
We blew it...
You have not done your homework. First of all, that's 'Wickard'. These are 2 of the most important Commerce Clause cases of the last 100 years. They gave fedgov the green light to control health care, the environment, education etc.
Roberts ruling does not touch these cases or the precedents they set. May I ask where you got your info for your assertions? It sounds a lot like a column from Krauthammer on Roberts' 'Brilliant Tactical Maneuver'. He got his facts wrong.
I do not get my info or opinions from other so called commentators, I read and formulate my own..
I actually read the damn thing instead of letting some radio host tell me what to think
In the ruling, starting at page 21, Wickard is brought specifically into this...
Have you read the entire ruling?
by the way, i am not a lawyer, I am a human.. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.