Utter Idiocy
Thomas and I do not just our stories off of the Internet. Every Sunday, we are greeted by two papers on our doorstep. One is the East Valley Tribune and the other is the Arizona Republic (or as Thomas prefers to call it "The Arizona Repugnant"; as you can tell, it’s slant is obvious. One of the sections we hit is always the "Viewpoints" section. It is the op-ed section of the Sunday paper in the Republic. And I found this little piece of note from our former Attorney General, Grant Woods.
The US Supreme Court got it wrong this week when it ignored the states’ rights to regulate small amounts of medicinal marijuana without federal interference. Many people mistakenly think it is a "liberal" position to advocate that a state like Arizona should be able to make up it’s own mind in this area.
As ridiculous as Reefer Madness was decades ago, there are still plenty of people whose beliefs are fairly similar to the knuckleheads who made that movie. Interestingly, you don’t find too many in law enforcement who get too worked up over small amounts of medicinal marijuana.
The Constitution restricts the power of the federal government and, in cases like these, the Congress should respect the will of the individual states. Do you think supporting Arizona’s right to regulate medicinal marijuana itself is a "liberal" position? Tell that to the three dissenters in the case; Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas.
((Cracking knuckles and sharpening claws)) Someone needs a reminder of the law. And I will do so with each paragraph.
The US Supreme Court got it wrong this week when it ignored the states’ rights to regulate small amounts of medicinal marijuana without federal interference. Many people mistakenly think it is a "liberal" position to advocate that a state like Arizona should be able to make up it’s own mind in this area.
States’ rights do not apply here, General Woods. It would only apply in this case had the state in question—that being California—had originally settled the overall issue to begin with. That, for those that missed it, would be the regulation of marijuana in it’s entirety. They did not have that overall power; it was reserved (or snatched up by) the federal government to begin with; therefore, General Woods, they hold all the aces in this game.
This is one of the reasons why Justice Stevens eloquently recommended that for a change, we, the people, must address Congress, and not the State. If this were a states’ rights issue, then there would have been no contention in the case, and the law would stand—unhindered. And I would like to remind General Woods that I am unaware of a single state in the union that does not already have marijuana as a banned substance, backed up by FDA regulations (they count, too), and federal law.
As ridiculous as Reefer Madness was decades ago, there are still plenty of people whose beliefs are fairly similar to the knuckleheads who made that movie. Interestingly, you don’t find too many in law enforcement who get too worked up over small amounts of medicinal marijuana.
This is an absolute dodge of the entire issue, and honestly, I am embarrassed that this man was ever attorney general to the state of Arizona. As a lawyer, I would consider this part of his argument a display of his ineptitude when it comes to the law. As for the assertion regarding law enforcement, I do not see too many enforcing lame-brained laws on the books in Arizona as it is. We have a law on the books that dictates that one may not smoke within fifteen feet of a public entrance to a building. I see plenty of police ignoring the people who break that law. So, his overall argument is crushed in a simple, stupid assertion.
The Constitution restricts the power of the federal government and, in cases like these, the Congress should respect the will of the individual states. Do you think supporting Arizona’s right to regulate medicinal marijuana itself is a "liberal" position? Tell that to the three dissenters in the case; Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas.
Constitution 101: Genius, the federal government already control over this issue. The states cannot usurp the power of the federal government. They technically could not if they wanted to. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law, and should a state law contravene federal law, they will rule on the side of the federal law every time. (Or they will invent the ability to do so, i.e., Roe v. Wade). The will of the individual states will be heard as soon as the federal government relinquishes control over this issue.
As for the dissenters, I am not happy with two of them. Many conspiracy ideas are abound regarding Rehnquist and his decision in this case. Can we lay those to rest; no one has proof of such a mindset when he rendered his decision. And I will forgive his short-sighted and inane idea that this issue revolves around states’ rights in light of his condition; yes, I am that forgiving.
O’Connor and Thomas, on the other hand, are a different matter. I expected more from Justice Thomas. The man has one of the finest Constitutional minds on the Court, next to Scalia. O’Connor when the way of the do-do years ago, but I expected her to at least recognize the role of the federal government in this case. This was not a hard case to figure out.
Federal law takes precedent. Stevens is correct in stating that we have to change Congress’s mind to change this issue. It is not an easy task, and those that wish that change have a hell of an uphill battle. Personally I do not care. As an athlete I have never indulged myself in marijuana. It is not good for my lungs, and as a swimmer, my lungs are my life.
For those, like General Woods and Ms. Raich, that wish to see the law changed, then I suggest you start lobbying Congress. The Supreme Court did not get this decision wrong; they got it right. Under the law—under precedents set by law—the Court ruled the right way.
The Bunny ;)
Thomas and I do not just our stories off of the Internet. Every Sunday, we are greeted by two papers on our doorstep. One is the East Valley Tribune and the other is the Arizona Republic (or as Thomas prefers to call it "The Arizona Repugnant"; as you can tell, it’s slant is obvious. One of the sections we hit is always the "Viewpoints" section. It is the op-ed section of the Sunday paper in the Republic. And I found this little piece of note from our former Attorney General, Grant Woods.
The US Supreme Court got it wrong this week when it ignored the states’ rights to regulate small amounts of medicinal marijuana without federal interference. Many people mistakenly think it is a "liberal" position to advocate that a state like Arizona should be able to make up it’s own mind in this area.
As ridiculous as Reefer Madness was decades ago, there are still plenty of people whose beliefs are fairly similar to the knuckleheads who made that movie. Interestingly, you don’t find too many in law enforcement who get too worked up over small amounts of medicinal marijuana.
The Constitution restricts the power of the federal government and, in cases like these, the Congress should respect the will of the individual states. Do you think supporting Arizona’s right to regulate medicinal marijuana itself is a "liberal" position? Tell that to the three dissenters in the case; Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas.
((Cracking knuckles and sharpening claws)) Someone needs a reminder of the law. And I will do so with each paragraph.
The US Supreme Court got it wrong this week when it ignored the states’ rights to regulate small amounts of medicinal marijuana without federal interference. Many people mistakenly think it is a "liberal" position to advocate that a state like Arizona should be able to make up it’s own mind in this area.
States’ rights do not apply here, General Woods. It would only apply in this case had the state in question—that being California—had originally settled the overall issue to begin with. That, for those that missed it, would be the regulation of marijuana in it’s entirety. They did not have that overall power; it was reserved (or snatched up by) the federal government to begin with; therefore, General Woods, they hold all the aces in this game.
This is one of the reasons why Justice Stevens eloquently recommended that for a change, we, the people, must address Congress, and not the State. If this were a states’ rights issue, then there would have been no contention in the case, and the law would stand—unhindered. And I would like to remind General Woods that I am unaware of a single state in the union that does not already have marijuana as a banned substance, backed up by FDA regulations (they count, too), and federal law.
As ridiculous as Reefer Madness was decades ago, there are still plenty of people whose beliefs are fairly similar to the knuckleheads who made that movie. Interestingly, you don’t find too many in law enforcement who get too worked up over small amounts of medicinal marijuana.
This is an absolute dodge of the entire issue, and honestly, I am embarrassed that this man was ever attorney general to the state of Arizona. As a lawyer, I would consider this part of his argument a display of his ineptitude when it comes to the law. As for the assertion regarding law enforcement, I do not see too many enforcing lame-brained laws on the books in Arizona as it is. We have a law on the books that dictates that one may not smoke within fifteen feet of a public entrance to a building. I see plenty of police ignoring the people who break that law. So, his overall argument is crushed in a simple, stupid assertion.
The Constitution restricts the power of the federal government and, in cases like these, the Congress should respect the will of the individual states. Do you think supporting Arizona’s right to regulate medicinal marijuana itself is a "liberal" position? Tell that to the three dissenters in the case; Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas.
Constitution 101: Genius, the federal government already control over this issue. The states cannot usurp the power of the federal government. They technically could not if they wanted to. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law, and should a state law contravene federal law, they will rule on the side of the federal law every time. (Or they will invent the ability to do so, i.e., Roe v. Wade). The will of the individual states will be heard as soon as the federal government relinquishes control over this issue.
As for the dissenters, I am not happy with two of them. Many conspiracy ideas are abound regarding Rehnquist and his decision in this case. Can we lay those to rest; no one has proof of such a mindset when he rendered his decision. And I will forgive his short-sighted and inane idea that this issue revolves around states’ rights in light of his condition; yes, I am that forgiving.
O’Connor and Thomas, on the other hand, are a different matter. I expected more from Justice Thomas. The man has one of the finest Constitutional minds on the Court, next to Scalia. O’Connor when the way of the do-do years ago, but I expected her to at least recognize the role of the federal government in this case. This was not a hard case to figure out.
Federal law takes precedent. Stevens is correct in stating that we have to change Congress’s mind to change this issue. It is not an easy task, and those that wish that change have a hell of an uphill battle. Personally I do not care. As an athlete I have never indulged myself in marijuana. It is not good for my lungs, and as a swimmer, my lungs are my life.
For those, like General Woods and Ms. Raich, that wish to see the law changed, then I suggest you start lobbying Congress. The Supreme Court did not get this decision wrong; they got it right. Under the law—under precedents set by law—the Court ruled the right way.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:31 PM
1 Comments:
No one wants to read this crap, especially in these colors.
Andrew
The Darn News
www.darnnews.com
Post a Comment
<< Home