Larry Gude
Strung Out
Maybe we should look to the Netherlands
Did they do what Portugal did or are you shopping for a model that is different but wasn't as successful?
Maybe we should look to the Netherlands
: That said, those who wish to see the law changed need to change it on the federal level, not the state level. Changing it on the state level is like saying the speed limit is whatever YOU say it is, not what the sign says, because YOU passed a law that inside your car only your laws matter. It's just as true as a state doing it contrary to federal law, given the Constitution (that the states ratified) says the Constitution and federal laws passed under it are of a higher authority than state laws.
How were the states involved in passing federal law prior to the 17th amendment? How are they involved now? What did it take to make the 17th amendment pass into enforceable law?
Everything I know of history shows, time after time after time, we are a nation of men, not laws. Laws are the guidelines, the general principles but we should not and, happily, can not, ever be a nation strictly of laws.
Disagree. People have been fighting back against the non sense of federal prohibition from day one and it's taken this long to get to a tipping point. You, any conservative, should be elated with the states experimenting with decriminalization for all the reasons conservatives USED to support that sort of thing; the states as laboratories, places of experiment so we can find, real world, what works and what doesn't.
Further prove of my theory we ALL have FAR more in common than our differences.
in the same way through their elected representatives, as to the second part of the question I don't understand the question.
The first question: How were states involved in passing federal law prior to the 17th amendment?
Your answer: In the same way, through their elected representation.
That's not exactly right. See, prior to the 17th, the people elected members of the House (as is done now), but the state legislatures sent representatives to the Senate. Thus, the Senate was the representation of the states, not the people of the states. Now, you can argue that the people of the states elected the state legislature representatives, but that misses the point. Today, the Senate is not recallable by the state legislatures, and the people there (the Senators) are trying to get re-elected based on the People, not based on the states re-sending them. Thus, their charge is VERY different from what it was, which was to look out for the interests of the state governments. They now answer to a completely different constituency.
So, as I said, the states gave up their right to be involved by ratifying the 17th amendment, and Article IV Section 4 says the laws the fed passes supersede the state laws, and the fed says you can't smoke pot recreationally (or sell it). So, we're back at square one here.
The second question, then, is that the states are not involved at all in the making of federal law. not at all. They do nothing. Not even a single thing. They used to be directly represented, now they have no representation. None. I hope I'm making this point clearly.
So, my assertion that the states did this to themselves comes in the form of the third question - what did it take to ratify the 17th amendment. It took 36 states, and by April of 1913 that was complete. As of today, 41 of the 50 states have ratified this amendment. They chose, 41-9 (really 41-1, as the only state that said "No" as a final answer was Utah)
I'm not seeing how this has nullified the 10th amendment.
Just last year, his narcotics team alone seized more than $3 million worth of illegal pot products.
Sounds to me like they ought to sell it back to Colorado... And $3M in "law enforcement drug dollars" is about as much is recovered every day at a border stops between Mexico and the US. Doesn't even measure as a drop in the bucket.
Did they do what Portugal did or are you shopping for a model that is different but wasn't as successful?
So, as I said, the states gave up their right to be involved by ratifying the 17th amendment, and Article IV Section 4 says the laws the fed passes supersede the state laws, and the fed says you can't smoke pot recreationally (or sell it). So, we're back at square one here.
See anything here about the DEA?
If I may ...
See anything here about the DEA?
Nope nore was most of what FDR did covered .... the Commerce Clause was perverted to give the FED Unlimited POWER
The feds can't enforce federal marijuana laws.
Why not?
Because, at a federal level, they simply don't enforce it.
That's different than "can't."