• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Prohibition and the constitution

Grammatron said:
So you disagree with the standards I provided with respect to Clinton. If so, why?
Click to expand...

You evade my question, you don't want to address the points made, and you think that you are entitled to ask questions yourself?

Get back when you are ready to debate.

Grammatron said:
CFL, do I need to be patient for this one as well or are you not going to reply at all?
Click to expand...

Check the timestamp of your post. I don't know the time in your timezone, but it was 1:51am in Denmark. What do you think the answer to your question is?
 
Check the timestamp of your post. I don't know the time in your timezone, but it was 1:51am in Denmark
Click to expand...
So is Denmark in some sort of time warp zone?
This since I've been waiting to some sort of explanation or just a simple "I was wrong" in this thread.

Or is that thread subject to your:

If nobody ever "left" threads "unanswered", then threads would grow infinitely. It could also be a case of people - not just me - simply giving up, because they don't feel they have anything more to say.
Click to expand...
Posted here

But of course that only seems to apply to you since all others will get their own thread with unanswered questions they have to reply to in order to get their credibility back in your eyes.
 
CBL4 said:
In the early 1900s, the leaders of the US wanted to ban the consumption and production of alcohol nationwide. In order to do this, the congress and the states pass the 18th constitutional amendment. This was necessary because the federal government had no constitutional authority to do so.

Later, congress simply passed laws to ban other drugs.

Why was it necessary to pass an amendment for alcohol but not for marijuana and heroin?

CBL
Click to expand...

Didn't the federtal government originally get around the legalities by passing the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which included jail time and steep fines for people who didn't pay taxes on transactions involving pot?
 
WinterMute said:
So is Denmark in some sort of time warp zone?
Click to expand...

No, it is in some sort of time zone, period. You do understand that the Earth is round, that half of the planet is periodically not facing the Sun, that that time is called "night" and that it is usually the time where people sleep?

Or am I going too fast for you?
 
CFLarsen said:
You evade my question, you don't want to address the points made, and you think that you are entitled to ask questions yourself?

Get back when you are ready to debate.
Click to expand...

At this point I must question your grasp of the English language. I don't mean it in as an insult but your reply simply makes no sense with respect to what I posted.

Check the timestamp of your post. I don't know the time in your timezone, but it was 1:51am in Denmark. What do you think the answer to your question is?
Click to expand...
Well I figured 3+ days was plenty of time to submit a reply regardless of the timezone issue.
 
The recent decision by the supreme court with respect to medical marijuana is part of the gradual move by the court to a philosophy that the constitution is ambiguous enough that it is only a minor constraint for the court on what it wants to do.

I am not sure that this is a bad or a good thing, I think arguments can be made both ways on this. But one consequence of this is to make the supreme court more powerful and the selection of judges far more political than previously. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as so many of the current supreme court justices step down.

One thing of interest here (to me at least) was that Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent that she was opposed to the legalization of medical marijuana but that she felt constrained by what the constitution actually said to uphold a state's right to legalize it. It was nice to see that some justices could still put forth an argument like that but I think that might be the dying gasp of that kind of view.
 
Didn't the federtal government originally get around the legalities by passing the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which included jail time and steep fines for people who didn't pay taxes on transactions involving pot?
Click to expand...
I guess this is my point. In 1937, they needed to tax it not ban it.

Apparently this started in 1914 with the Harrison Tax Act. The point was to make in prohibitively expensive to buy drugs. The marijuana tax act was in the same vein.

This was during a high point of state rights and actually understanding what interstate commerce was and was not.

CBL
 
davefoc said:
The recent decision by the supreme court with respect to medical marijuana is part of the gradual move by the court to a philosophy that the constitution is ambiguous enough that it is only a minor constraint for the court on what it wants to do.
Click to expand...

This is the core complaint from strict constructionists (or originalists, or whatever they wish to call themselves). I don't agree that this is part of a gradual move; I think the move has already happened, and has been happening for a long time. Now what we're seeing, with Scalia, Thomas, and future appointments, is the move back to strict interpretations. At least, on the surface. I would have thought Scalia, Mr. Originalist, would have gone with the dissent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom