• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Huge Federal Budget cutting Idea

Tam

Well-known member
obama.jpg


He has it OK :x
If he doesn't agree to charges brought against his election helpers he gets them dropped.
If the majority of voters don't like Obamacare he passes it anyway.
If the Court says it is Unconstitutional he demands it be funded anyway.
If the Congress doesn't pass his Cap and Trade agenda he passes it by doing the end run around them and uses EPA regulations to do it.
If he doesn't get his radical appointee approved by the Congress he recess appoints them.
If he doesn't like the actions on immigration of a State Government he sues them
If he doesn't like the actions of a State Governor dealing with Public Unions to cut the State budget he sends in his Campaign organizers to organize protest rallies.
If he doesn't agree with the Supreme Court ruling on Off shore drilling he ignores them.
If he doesn't like the Defense of Marriage Act he calls it unconstitutional and refuses to defend it.
If he wants to kiss up to foreign dictators he embarrasses the US by BOWING
If he feels the need to bring the US reputation down he apologizes for what made them the Super Power it was before he was sworn in.
He believe he can win a war by telling the enemy the date he is pulling out the troops instead of allowing the Military brass decide when the troops have WON THE BATTLE.
He is a one man wrecking ball with an army of Radicals behind him and the US Military and economy are their target.

I have an idea the US government needs to cut the skyrocketing budget. One way is to send the Congress, Supreme Court and Pentigon staff on a two year recess and lay off all their assistants. Who needs Checks and Balances or Military Advisors in the Federal Government when OBAMA HAS GOT IT COVERED. :x
 

Tam

Well-known member
In the great words of a Montana Democrat Jon Sesso :wink:

From FH post on the Montana Tea Party and the Dems reaction to them.

House Minority Leader Jon Sesso stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?


I always thought it was the SUPREME COURT but I guess we were wrong in thinking so, it seems to be the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA that decides what is unconstitutional and what is not. :x
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
In the great words of a Montana Democrat Jon Sesso :wink:

From FH post on the Montana Tea Party and the Dems reaction to them.

House Minority Leader Jon Sesso stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?


I always thought it was the SUPREME COURT but I guess we were wrong in thinking so, it seems to be the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA that decides what is unconstitutional and what is not. :x

Tam, is is up to each and every American, especially those who have sworn an oath to God to do so, to decide if the Constitution is being followed or not. That is the end of the story, the buck stops here!
Obama can nullify a law if he so chooses, and so can we.
any matter over $20.00 you can demand a jury trial, and then the jury can find NOT GUILTY and so nullify a law. the prosecuter can decide not to prosecute and so nullify a law, as can law enforcement, state legislature, etc. The Constitution is every Americans legally binding written contract with our government. lets demand that it, The U.S. Constitution, be enforced.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Tam said:
In the great words of a Montana Democrat Jon Sesso :wink:

From FH post on the Montana Tea Party and the Dems reaction to them.

House Minority Leader Jon Sesso stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?


I always thought it was the SUPREME COURT but I guess we were wrong in thinking so, it seems to be the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA that decides what is unconstitutional and what is not. :x

Tam, is is up to each and every American, especially those who have sworn an oath to God to do so, to decide if the Constitution is being followed or not. That is the end of the story, the buck stops here!
Obama can nullify a law if he so chooses, and so can we.
any matter over $20.00 you can demand a jury trial, and then the jury can find NOT GUILTY and so nullify a law. the prosecuter can decide not to prosecute and so nullify a law, as can law enforcement, state legislature, etc. The Constitution is every Americans legally binding written contract with our government. lets demand that it, The U.S. Constitution, be enforced.

Nullify to make legally null and void -to make of no value or consequence


Please explain why Governors of 27 states are sueing the Federal Government in FEDERAL COURT over the Healthcare bill if anyone can claim a law UNCONSTITUTIONAL and nullify it? Why not just save the court cost in a time of financial crisis and claim the Healthcare bill null and void and stop Obama in his tracks? You see your claim that anyone can decide whether a law is breaking the Constitution or not doesn't hold water when State governments through out the US are saying they need a Supreme Court RULING ON CONSTITUTIONALLY of the Healthcare bill to stop the implimentation of said bill. The only way to stop Obamacare is for the SUPREME COURT to deem it Unconstitutional or Repeal it. Or have all these Governors, Congressmen and Senators missed the official breifing on how something it deems Unconstitutional in US law and are wasting tax dollars going through the courts to legally nullify it.

BTW Isn't it true the Jury doesn't nullify a law they nullify the State's case against somebody that they see as innocent. The law stands to be used against somebody that actually is guilty of breaking it, the Prosecutor's case is make not of value or consequence against the person found not guilty.

A Prosecutor doesn't nullify a law either just because he doesn't charge a person, as he nulifies the case just like the jury would if the person was found innocent of breaking the law.

A law is null and void when the COURTS decide the law enforcement are never to be enforcing it again.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam said:
In the great words of a Montana Democrat Jon Sesso :wink:

From FH post on the Montana Tea Party and the Dems reaction to them.




I always thought it was the SUPREME COURT but I guess we were wrong in thinking so, it seems to be the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA that decides what is unconstitutional and what is not. :x

Tam, is is up to each and every American, especially those who have sworn an oath to God to do so, to decide if the Constitution is being followed or not. That is the end of the story, the buck stops here!
Obama can nullify a law if he so chooses, and so can we.
any matter over $20.00 you can demand a jury trial, and then the jury can find NOT GUILTY and so nullify a law. the prosecuter can decide not to prosecute and so nullify a law, as can law enforcement, state legislature, etc. The Constitution is every Americans legally binding written contract with our government. lets demand that it, The U.S. Constitution, be enforced.

Nullify to make legally null and void -to make of no value or consequence


Please explain why Governors of 27 states are sueing the Federal Government in FEDERAL COURT over the Healthcare bill if anyone can claim a law UNCONSTITUTIONAL and nullify it? Why not just save the court cost in a time of financial crisis and claim the Healthcare bill null and void and stop Obama in his tracks? You see your claim that anyone can decide whether a law is breaking the Constitution or not doesn't hold water when State governments through out the US are saying they need a Supreme Court RULING ON CONSTITUTIONALLY of the Healthcare bill to stop the implimentation of said bill. The only way to stop Obamacare is for the SUPREME COURT to deem it Unconstitutional or Repeal it. Or have all these Governors, Congressmen and Senators missed the official breifing on how something it deems Unconstitutional in US law and are wasting tax dollars going through the courts to legally nullify it.

BTW Isn't it true the Jury doesn't nullify a law they nullify the State's case against somebody that they see as innocent. The law stands to be used against somebody that actually is guilty of breaking it, the Prosecutor's case is make not of value or consequence against the person found not guilty.

A Prosecutor doesn't nullify a law either just because he doesn't charge a person, as he nulifies the case just like the jury would if the person was found innocent of breaking the law.

A law is null and void when the COURTS decide the law enforcement are never to be enforcing it again.

Well Tam you make some really good points-
I believe most of them you answered yourself--to make of no value or consequence if they fail to arrest,prosecute or convict you I don't see any value or consequence in it, do you? it is a pain wondering if you will be the first though. as far as states nullifying obamacare I believe Idaho has already done that, the bill is moving through MT legislature right now, I've lost track of the number of states working on this but it is sizeable. The reason for the delay is lots of state legislatures meet every other year, so this is their first chance to nullify obamacare.
It has happened allot of times- good example, feds have a law against marijuana, several states passed medical marijuana laws, in direct defiance of federal law (therfore making federal law of no value or consequence) if this in unconstitutional why hasn't the feds challenged it in court? because they know they would lose.

ok,now for this:
A law is null and void when the COURTS decide the law enforcement are never to be enforcing it again

If courts are to be the sole decider, then why do law enforcement, military, elected officials, all take an oath to support, protect, and defend the aplicable Constitutions? How are they supposed to do this if the courts are the sole decider?

I know it is a hard concept to grasp at first because it is so simple and because we have been lied to for so long- think way back, where did this idea that only the supreme court decide constitutionality come from?

consider this:
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."
(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

I will also add:

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

From the begining men knew it was our right and responsibility to judge the Constitutionality of any action, by apathy and complacency we have almost lost or surrendered that power- we need to all step up and support, protect, and defend our Constitutions. That is exactly what I was doing when I corrected you. If you want to argue this further I can pull out all kind of refrences from history and show this to you. Your smart though, I think your wheels are about to spin off right now examining the evidence I've given you. :shock:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam, is is up to each and every American, especially those who have sworn an oath to God to do so, to decide if the Constitution is being followed or not. That is the end of the story, the buck stops here!
Obama can nullify a law if he so chooses, and so can we.
any matter over $20.00 you can demand a jury trial, and then the jury can find NOT GUILTY and so nullify a law. the prosecuter can decide not to prosecute and so nullify a law, as can law enforcement, state legislature, etc. The Constitution is every Americans legally binding written contract with our government. lets demand that it, The U.S. Constitution, be enforced.

Nullify to make legally null and void -to make of no value or consequence


Please explain why Governors of 27 states are sueing the Federal Government in FEDERAL COURT over the Healthcare bill if anyone can claim a law UNCONSTITUTIONAL and nullify it? Why not just save the court cost in a time of financial crisis and claim the Healthcare bill null and void and stop Obama in his tracks? You see your claim that anyone can decide whether a law is breaking the Constitution or not doesn't hold water when State governments through out the US are saying they need a Supreme Court RULING ON CONSTITUTIONALLY of the Healthcare bill to stop the implimentation of said bill. The only way to stop Obamacare is for the SUPREME COURT to deem it Unconstitutional or Repeal it. Or have all these Governors, Congressmen and Senators missed the official breifing on how something it deems Unconstitutional in US law and are wasting tax dollars going through the courts to legally nullify it.

BTW Isn't it true the Jury doesn't nullify a law they nullify the State's case against somebody that they see as innocent. The law stands to be used against somebody that actually is guilty of breaking it, the Prosecutor's case is make not of value or consequence against the person found not guilty.

A Prosecutor doesn't nullify a law either just because he doesn't charge a person, as he nulifies the case just like the jury would if the person was found innocent of breaking the law.

A law is null and void when the COURTS decide the law enforcement are never to be enforcing it again.

Well Tam you make some really good points-
I believe most of them you answered yourself--to make of no value or consequence if they fail to arrest,prosecute or convict you I don't see any value or consequence in it, do you? it is a pain wondering if you will be the first though. as far as states nullifying obamacare I believe Idaho has already done that, the bill is moving through MT legislature right now, I've lost track of the number of states working on this but it is sizeable. The reason for the delay is lots of state legislatures meet every other year, so this is their first chance to nullify obamacare.
It has happened allot of times- good example, feds have a law against marijuana, several states passed medical marijuana laws, in direct defiance of federal law (therfore making federal law of no value or consequence) if this in unconstitutional why hasn't the feds challenged it in court? because they know they would lose.

ok,now for this:
A law is null and void when the COURTS decide the law enforcement are never to be enforcing it again

If courts are to be the sole decider, then why do law enforcement, military, elected officials, all take an oath to support, protect, and defend the aplicable Constitutions? How are they supposed to do this if the courts are the sole decider?

I know it is a hard concept to grasp at first because it is so simple and because we have been lied to for so long- think way back, where did this idea that only the supreme court decide constitutionality come from?

consider this:
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."
(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

I will also add:

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

From the begining men knew it was our right and responsibility to judge the Constitutionality of any action, by apathy and complacency we have almost lost or surrendered that power- we need to all step up and support, protect, and defend our Constitutions. That is exactly what I was doing when I corrected you. If you want to argue this further I can pull out all kind of refrences from history and show this to you. Your smart though, I think your wheels are about to spin off right now examining the evidence I've given you. :shock:

So what you are saying is if a jury finds one person not guilty of breaking a certain law the person was charges with the law is Nullified. I doubt that but if you want to believe than knock yourself out.

And again if it is so easy for a state to nullify a Federal Law then why are 27 states fighting Obamacare it in Federal Court? :?
Why is AZ being taken to Court to defend their new Immigration law? :?
If voters make the law by simply voting on something then why have the courts ruled certain majority passed laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL when challenged?

SAN FRANCISCO — Saying that it discriminates against gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions at least a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter in what is expected to be a long battle over the ban — Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Indeed, while striking down Proposition 8, the decision will not immediately lead to any new same-sex marriages being performed in California. Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, immediately stayed his own decision, pending appeals by proponents of Proposition 8, who seem confident that higher courts would hear and favor their position.

Court blocks Oklahoma constitutional amendment about Sharia law
Trevor Shofner/The Daily
Monday, November 8, 2010

A Monday morning hearing at the District Court in Oklahoma City resulted in a temporary restraining order on Oklahoma’s approved ballot measure prohibiting Sharia law from being considered in state court.

The ban comes as a result of the pending civil rights case Awad v. Ziriak. The Council on American Islamic Relations Executive Director Muneer Awad said the ban “stigmatizes his religion” and filed the law suit last Thursday, claiming State Question 755 “unconstitutional.”

The state election board has been blocked from certifying the results from Nov. 2, which passed with 70 percent in favor of the amendment.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
that post was getting too long:


So what you are saying is if a jury finds one person not guilty of breaking a crime the law the person was charges with is Nullified.
For that person it is,(double jeopardy) and if it is a unconstitutional law, then hopefully for the next and next and next untill prosecuters won't waste their time and then niether will law enforcement. seems pretty simple if the jury of your peers knows it's Constitution, hence the need to keep us dumbed down.



And again if it is so easy for a state to nullify a Federal Law then why are 27 states fighting Obamacare it in Federal Court?
As I tried to explain earlier, their state legislators hadn't had a chance to meet yet, so not wasting time state attorney general's filed suit in our behalf. This (obamacare) was a radical step by obama and the statists, so Freedom lovers are leaving anything to chance, states attorney generals are filing suit, state legislators are declaring it null and not funding obamacare as well as U.S.House of Reps. not funding it.
Lets not take any more chances with this and attack it from all angles because it attacks Liberty from all angles.


Why is AZ being taken to Court to defend their new Immigration law?
Good question!!! although it has nothing to do with nullification, in this case the state is wanting to enforce the equivelent of federal law that obama won't. obama is trying to nullify federal imigration law by not enforcing it but the state (the people effected) wants it done. Interesting switch. you see in the case of obamacare it is unconstitutional so the people want it removed. in the AZ imigration case the fed. govt. are again unconstitutional so once again the people cry foul and want the fed.gov. to do one of it's few enumerated responsibilities.

If voters make the law by simply voting for on something then why have the courts ruled certain majority passed laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL when challenged?
Checks and balances- we are a Republic, not a democracy
we are ruled by laws and not men or mobs of men. That is why our Constitution is so important. I never said a court can't declare a law unconstitutional- the judges swore and oath to support protect and defend the Constitution too.


We supposedly live in a Free nation, it should be hard to pass a new bad law and easy to get rid of bad ones. Our Founding Fathers were so wise, they were experienced with tyranny and had risked all to gain Freedom just prior to writing our Constitution. Mostly we have forgotten that, or rather were never tought that.
 

Tam

Well-known member
So you are saying these 27 states
Virginia
Florida
South Carolina
Nebraska
Texas
Utah
Louisiana
Alabama
Michigan
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Washington
Idaho
South Dakota
North Dakota
Arizona
Georgia
Alaska
Nevada
Indiana
Mississippi
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Ohio
Kansas
Maine

decided to take legal action that some say will be drawn out in the Courts for years, because they were not sitting and would not be sitting for awhile? :?

Tell me what was the likelyhood of this case getting resolved by the Supreme Court before any of these states had opporuntiy to challenge it at the State level?

My guess is slim to none since a couple of these states are sitting now and it is still not even close to the Supreme Court for a ruling, so why bother taking the expensive route if it wasn't necessary to KILL THE BILL on Constitutional grounds THROUGH THE COURTS?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Judicial review
The Constitution says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Constitution defines the kinds of cases to which the "judicial power" applies, including cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Beyond hearing and deciding such cases, however, the Constitution does not define what the "judicial power" is.

Constitutionality of judicial review
Scholars have debated whether the federal judicial power includes the power of judicial review. Judicial review means reviewing congressional laws (and executive action) to determine if they are valid under the Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically give the federal judiciary the power of judicial review. Instead, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI says, "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

Some scholars believe that only the judicial branch can determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether congressional laws have been "made in pursuance" of, or in carrying out, the Constitution. Others believe that Congress and the president are responsible for deciding if their own actions are constitutional. Still others believe that the people of America, who elect Congress and, indirectly, the president, are ultimately responsible for deciding what is lawful under the Constitution and what is not.

Although the Constitution is unclear on judicial review, many of the men who wrote it in 1787 generally believed the judiciary would have this power. Foremost among them was Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804), who in 1789 became the first secretary of the treasury under President George Washington (1732–1799; served 1789–97). According to Joan Biskupic and Elder Witt in The Supreme Court & the Powers of the American Government, Hamilton wrote in No. 78 of The Federalist Papers in 1788:

Limitations [on Congress] . . . can be preserved in no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . . No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . . The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain [determine] its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable [conflicting] variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents [in Congress].

Marbury v. Madison
In 1803, fifteen years after adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court officially answered the question of whether the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. It did so in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison. The case was part of a political battle between Federalists, led by Chief Justice John Marshall (1755–1835), and Democratic-Republicans, led by President Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826; served 1801–9) and Secretary of State James Madison (1751–1836).

In the election of 1800, the Federalists lost control of both Congress and the presidency to the Democratic-Republicans. Before leaving office, Congress created sixteen new federal judgeships and authorized Federalist president John Adams (1735–1826; served 1797–1801) to name as many justices of the peace in the District of Columbia as he wished. Adams, in turn, named Federalists to fill the sixteen new federal judgeships plus forty-two justice of the peace positions. He also appointed Marshall, then serving as his secretary of state, to be the chief justice of the Supreme Court. (The chief justice is the head of the Supreme Court.)

One of Marshall's last duties before leaving office as secretary of state was to deliver the commissions, or official orders, to the people appointed to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. Somehow he failed to deliver four of them, including one to an attorney named William Marbury. When President Jefferson took office in March 1801, Marbury asked Jefferson's secretary of state, Madison, to give him the commission. Under orders from Jefferson, Madison refused to give the commission to Marbury.

Marbury decided to sue Madison in the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is an official court order for a government official to do his or her job. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Madison, ordering him to deliver the commission to Marbury.

Marshall, the very man who had failed to deliver the commission in the first place, helped to decide the case in 1803 as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Writing the Court's official opinion in the case, Marshall agreed that Marbury should get the commission. He also agreed that a writ of mandamus was the proper tool for forcing Madison to deliver the commission. Marshall surprised everyone, however, by concluding that the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus. His reason was that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court power to issue the writ, violated the Constitution. The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court power to issue writs in such cases, so a congressional law trying to give the Supreme Court that power was in violation of the Constitution.

In the course of his written opinion, Marshall announced that the judiciary has the power of judicial review:

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant [offensive] to it. . . . It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound [explain] and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operations of each. . . . If then the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

The case was a political victory for Marshall and the Federalists. Although he declared the Court incapable of giving Marbury the commission, Marshall assumed the greater power to review, in cases before the Court, laws passed by the Democratic-Republican controlled Congress.

Marshall's opinion on judicial review still stands, and federal courts routinely review congressional laws in the cases before them. Americans would probably have to enact a constitutional amendment to strip the federal judiciary of the power of judicial review.

As of 2005, the Supreme Court has struck down only around 125 federal laws and executive orders as unconstitutional. The mere existence of judicial review, however, can affect the laws that Congress passes.

According to this the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and what is not when in question. if the People want that right they would have to amend the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of their judicial power of review. If Obama wants to strip the SC of their power and take it for himself he has to amend the Constitution also and that is not an easy feat even for a power hungry narcissist like him.

I believe some of the states are now declaring Obamacare null and void as the courts have said it is not constitutional and they believe the lower court ruling will stand and they don't want to waste tax payers money on something that the Courts is going to rule for them on. And why should they when they are risking bankruptcy if they don't cut their budgets verses adding just another entitlement they will be liable for in the very near future.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
Judicial review
The Constitution says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Constitution defines the kinds of cases to which the "judicial power" applies, including cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Beyond hearing and deciding such cases, however, the Constitution does not define what the "judicial power" is.

Constitutionality of judicial review
Scholars have debated whether the federal judicial power includes the power of judicial review. Judicial review means reviewing congressional laws (and executive action) to determine if they are valid under the Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically give the federal judiciary the power of judicial review. Instead, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI says, "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

Some scholars believe that only the judicial branch can determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether congressional laws have been "made in pursuance" of, or in carrying out, the Constitution. Others believe that Congress and the president are responsible for deciding if their own actions are constitutional. Still others believe that the people of America, who elect Congress and, indirectly, the president, are ultimately responsible for deciding what is lawful under the Constitution and what is not.

Although the Constitution is unclear on judicial review, many of the men who wrote it in 1787 generally believed the judiciary would have this power. Foremost among them was Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804), who in 1789 became the first secretary of the treasury under President George Washington (1732–1799; served 1789–97). According to Joan Biskupic and Elder Witt in The Supreme Court & the Powers of the American Government, Hamilton wrote in No. 78 of The Federalist Papers in 1788:

Limitations [on Congress] . . . can be preserved in no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . . No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . . The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain [determine] its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable [conflicting] variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents [in Congress].

Marbury v. Madison
In 1803, fifteen years after adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court officially answered the question of whether the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. It did so in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison. The case was part of a political battle between Federalists, led by Chief Justice John Marshall (1755–1835), and Democratic-Republicans, led by President Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826; served 1801–9) and Secretary of State James Madison (1751–1836).

In the election of 1800, the Federalists lost control of both Congress and the presidency to the Democratic-Republicans. Before leaving office, Congress created sixteen new federal judgeships and authorized Federalist president John Adams (1735–1826; served 1797–1801) to name as many justices of the peace in the District of Columbia as he wished. Adams, in turn, named Federalists to fill the sixteen new federal judgeships plus forty-two justice of the peace positions. He also appointed Marshall, then serving as his secretary of state, to be the chief justice of the Supreme Court. (The chief justice is the head of the Supreme Court.)

One of Marshall's last duties before leaving office as secretary of state was to deliver the commissions, or official orders, to the people appointed to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. Somehow he failed to deliver four of them, including one to an attorney named William Marbury. When President Jefferson took office in March 1801, Marbury asked Jefferson's secretary of state, Madison, to give him the commission. Under orders from Jefferson, Madison refused to give the commission to Marbury.

Marbury decided to sue Madison in the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is an official court order for a government official to do his or her job. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Madison, ordering him to deliver the commission to Marbury.

Marshall, the very man who had failed to deliver the commission in the first place, helped to decide the case in 1803 as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Writing the Court's official opinion in the case, Marshall agreed that Marbury should get the commission. He also agreed that a writ of mandamus was the proper tool for forcing Madison to deliver the commission. Marshall surprised everyone, however, by concluding that the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus. His reason was that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court power to issue the writ, violated the Constitution. The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court power to issue writs in such cases, so a congressional law trying to give the Supreme Court that power was in violation of the Constitution.

In the course of his written opinion, Marshall announced that the judiciary has the power of judicial review:

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant [offensive] to it. . . . It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound [explain] and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operations of each. . . . If then the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

The case was a political victory for Marshall and the Federalists. Although he declared the Court incapable of giving Marbury the commission, Marshall assumed the greater power to review, in cases before the Court, laws passed by the Democratic-Republican controlled Congress.

Marshall's opinion on judicial review still stands, and federal courts routinely review congressional laws in the cases before them. Americans would probably have to enact a constitutional amendment to strip the federal judiciary of the power of judicial review.

As of 2005, the Supreme Court has struck down only around 125 federal laws and executive orders as unconstitutional. The mere existence of judicial review, however, can affect the laws that Congress passes.

According to this the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and what is not when in question. if the People want that right they would have to amend the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of their judicial power of review. If Obama wants to strip the SC of their power and take it for himself he has to amend the Constitution also and that is not an easy feat even for a power hungry narcissist like him.

I believe some of the states are now declaring Obamacare null and void as the courts have said it is not constitutional and they believe the lower court ruling will stand and they don't want to waste tax payers money on something that the Courts is going to rule for them on. And why should they when they are risking bankruptcy if they don't cut their budgets verses adding just another entitlement they will be liable for in the very near future.

Tam-
I commend you for taking the time to look deeper- there are several on here that are too scared and opinionated to do that. there are several quotes from the article you posted that I would like to point out.

The Constitution does not specifically give the federal judiciary the power of judicial review

That was my point- I would term it exclusive power of judicial review.
Yes it is partly the responsibility of the judicial but

Some scholars believe that only the judicial branch can determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether congressional laws have been "made in pursuance" of, or in carrying out, the Constitution. Others believe that Congress and the president are responsible for deciding if their own actions are constitutional. Still others believe that the people of America, who elect Congress and, indirectly, the president, are ultimately responsible for deciding what is lawful under the Constitution and what is not.

this is because the Constitution did not specifically and exclusively give the power to decide Constitutionality to the judicial- in America power comes from the bottom up- why would this be turned around and come from the top down?

The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court power to issue writs in such cases, so a congressional law trying to give the Supreme Court that power was in violation of the Constitution.

In the course of his written opinion, Marshall announced that the judiciary has the power of judicial review:

so do you believe he gained this exclusive power by simply announcing his opinion?


The case was a political victory for Marshall and the Federalists. Although he declared the Court incapable of giving Marbury the commission, Marshall assumed the greater power to review, in cases before the Court, laws passed by the Democratic-Republican controlled Congress.

look at that again "political victory for Marshall, Marshall ASSUMED the greater power"

Now I once again offer this:

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."
(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

Do you really want to accept the "political victory of assumed greater power" over what the supreme law of the land says:
The Constitution does not specifically give the federal judiciary the power of judicial review

Imagine that, a government employee ASSUMING power that he doesn't have based on OPINION - are you still going to defend him in this?

one quick point- although not legally binding lets look to the Declaration of independance for a peek at mindset at the time.


in the list of grievance committed:

" he has made judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices and the ammount and payment of their salaries"

" for depriving us in many casesof the benefits of a trial by Jury"

Do you really think that these same people would later then think that a FEDERAL court employee (judge) should exclusively decide if the FEDERAL government is obeying the Constitution or not?

I will post again this statment of Tomas Jefferson:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
" Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Do you really want to roll over and play dead and give powers to men that the Constitution does not? The problem with that is then they assume they also have this power over me also even though I did not relinquish it.
something to think about- Thanks for the discussion!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Although the Constitution is unclear on judicial review, many of the men who wrote it in 1787 generally believed the judiciary would have this power

In 1803, fifteen years after adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court officially answered the question of whether the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review

They officially answer who had the power in 1803. They meaning the Supreme Court and the men that wrote the Constitution.


Marshall's opinion on judicial review still stands, and federal courts routinely review congressional laws in the cases before them. Americans would probably have to enact a constitutional amendment to strip the federal judiciary of the power of judicial review.
As of 2005, the Supreme Court has struck down only around 125 federal laws and executive orders as unconstitutional. The mere existence of judicial review, however, can affect the laws that Congress passes.

If the Supreme Court doesn't have the power of Judical Review like you would have us believe then what is the need for an AMENDMENT TO STRIP THEM OF THE POWER? :?

Here is another version


The authority of the U.S. Supreme Court derives from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Its jurisdiction is set out by statute in Title 28 of the U.S. Code. The Court itself promulgates the rules governing the presentation of cases to it. See Supreme Court Rules (effective Oct. 2, 1995). (Source: Cornell School of Law)

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’ s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government.

That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government. The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’ s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court’ s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’ s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind ... Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’ s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 7,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has “original jurisdiction” in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

[The foregoing was taken from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court of the United States, and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.]

Now I don't know about you but I think I will take the Supreme Court's word on Who has final say on whether a law is constitutional or not. :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Tam-

Do you really believe that after a long and bloody war for Freedom, breaking away from generations of slavery, tyranny, and oppresion that the founding fathers would have handed absolute power to decide Constitutionality over to 9 men who are employed by the federal govt.??
The proverbial fox gaurding the hen house?

And you are willing to believe that those 9 men have absolute power to do so just because those same 9 men say so?

Come on Tam- do you really believe that??

here's some reading on this for you;

http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-about-state-nullification/
 

Tam

Well-known member
First of all thank you for friendly debate on an issue with no rude name calling. We may not agree on this issue but at least debating it has not turned nasty like so many debates with a Liberal seem to. :wink:

I believe the Supreme court when they say they have the final say.

I believe if they were doing something wrong or against the Constitution , sometime within the past couple hundred years the PEOPLE would have AMENDED the Constitution to define the true meaning and strip the Supreme Court of Judicial Review powers but since laws still wind up on their bench for a FINAL ruling as to their Constitutionality, I believe the PEOPLE believe they have that power just like some claim the Founding Fathers believed they had that power at the time of them writing the Constitution.

But since you seem to think THE PEOPLE have the right to declare something Unconstitutional then explain something to me.

There was a CNN poll out that says 6 out of 10 Americans don't believe Obama's Birth Story. So why if the People have the right to declare something unconstitutional have the 60% of Americans not declared President Barak Hussain Obama Unconstitutionally qualified to sit in the Oval Office and nullified his Presidency? Why fight it out in the courts and wait for the Supreme Court to hear the case to get a ruling? Why not just declare him unconstitutional themselves and be done with him and his socialist agenda?

Some say Health Care Bill will not be repeal by the Congress while Obama is sitting in the Oval Office due to Obama's VETO power. Why bother suing in any court waiting for the case to be heard why don't THE PEOPLE just pull an "OBAMA" and declare OBAMACARE Unconstitutional and therefore nullified? After the results of the last election I doubt anyone can deny (Except the Democrats that live on the river of DENIAL) a majority of Americans think the bill is unconstitutional and don't want it. The US is going broke FAST so why waste money on lawyers fighting it out in court if it is not necessary?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
well Tam that goes both ways- it takes 2 inteligent people to carry on an inteligent conversation. Thank You!!

in brief here goes:

approx. 10 states now have legislation to make a candidate prove his Constitutional qualifications to get on the ballot in that state for president.
In effect this should disqualify obama from running again if he is indeed unqualified. (assuming the legislation passes)

several states, the number keeps rising, are adopting bills to nullify obamacare, the feds are putting tremendous pressure on states not to do this. but every angle is being taken, we can NOT afford to lose this one, we must use EVERY line of defense. and I do mean defense, the statists in the fed. Gov. are on the offense here, trying to grab new powers away from We the People. They must be defeated no matter what the cost.

I think that answers your questions

Now I'll ask you this-
1;if NOT "Nullification" what label do you want to use to describe states passing medical marijuana laws in defiance of the federal govt. laws?
2; Why is the fed.gov. not resisting this, maybe suing in court like they did AZ
 

Tam

Well-known member
This will be my final comment on this issue as all good debates do have a time limit even if it has to end in deadlock and we can let THE PEOPLE be the judge.

In the big picture, it matters little what I believe as long as the Supreme Court and everyone that files a case with them believe they are the highest authority on what is Constitutional and what is not and have final say through their power of Judicial Review.

When a case is lost at the Supreme Court there is no other court to hear the case and it is DONE. The only thing that can be done at that point is to CHANGE the rules/laws so the next time it comes into question the case can be won on a constitutional basis.

Example If Obama still wants Obamacare all he has to do is take the part the lower court found unconstitutional out before it hits the Higher courts. BUT he can't do that as according to him and his lawyers the whole plan will crumble if that part is eliminated. When the Court in Florida ruled one part unconstitutional, the whole bill had to be ruled Unconstitutional because the Dems did not put any statements in the monster bill that says it can be severed and ruled on part by part.

When the one part IE the mandate to force people to buy something they don't want, was ruled Unconstitutional the whole bill had to be included in the ruling. IF the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling the whole thing is DEAD IN THE WATER, and the Dems will have to take it back and change the offending parts so if challenged again it can pass muster. If GOD FORBID the Supreme Court rules against the Florida lower court ruling the whole bill is law and the US is bankrupt.

AS for the election rules the state has the right to say who is put on their State ballots so the states are just DEFINING THE RULES to say what is required as proof of qualifications. I see this as a good move and hope the legislation passed but I would not be surprised if the Dems challenge the actions all the way to the Supreme Court especially if it is going to knock their candidate out after he has service for a term under the cloak of secrecy. If the American voters over 200 years ago would have defined the rules on the Supreme Court powers to make them a bit clearer we would not be debating a certain issue still today. :wink:

Your answer is as good as Mind on why the federal Government would go after one state Government's move to protect themselves from Illegal immigrants and not after another Government over Marijuana maybe it is a Left verses right thingy. But the thing is they are going after them in the COURTS and the case will be heard by the SUPREME COURT before all is said in done. :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
This will be my final comment on this issue as all good debates do have a time limit even if it has to end in deadlock and we can let THE PEOPLE be the judge.

In the big picture, it matters little what I believe as long as the Supreme Court and everyone that files a case with them believe they are the highest authority on what is Constitutional and what is not and have final say through their power of Judicial Review.

When a case is lost at the Supreme Court there is no other court to hear the case and it is DONE. The only thing that can be done at that point is to CHANGE the rules/laws so the next time it comes into question the case can be won on a constitutional basis.

Example If Obama still wants Obamacare all he has to do is take the part the lower court found unconstitutional out before it hits the Higher courts. BUT he can't do that as according to him and his lawyers the whole plan will crumble if that part is eliminated. When the Court in Florida ruled one part unconstitutional, the whole bill had to be ruled Unconstitutional because the Dems did not put any statements in the monster bill that says it can be severed and ruled on part by part.

When the one part IE the mandate to force people to buy something they don't want, was ruled Unconstitutional the whole bill had to be included in the ruling. IF the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling the whole thing is DEAD IN THE WATER, and the Dems will have to take it back and change the offending parts so if challenged again it can pass muster. If GOD FORBID the Supreme Court rules against the Florida lower court ruling the whole bill is law and the US is bankrupt.

AS for the election rules the state has the right to say who is put on their State ballots so the states are just DEFINING THE RULES to say what is required as proof of qualifications. I see this as a good move and hope the legislation passed but I would not be surprised if the Dems challenge the actions all the way to the Supreme Court especially if it is going to knock their candidate out after he has service for a term under the cloak of secrecy. If the American voters over 200 years ago would have defined the rules on the Supreme Court powers to make them a bit clearer we would not be debating a certain issue still today. :wink:

Your answer is as good as Mind on why the federal Government would go after one state Government's move to protect themselves from Illegal immigrants and not after another Government over Marijuana maybe it is a Left verses right thingy. But the thing is they are going after them in the COURTS and the case will be heard by the SUPREME COURT before all is said in done. :wink:

I know you said that would be your final comment, it does get tiring- BUT--- please-
we've both been good sports-- you missed one of my questions.

If NOT "Nullification" what label should be used to describe states passing laws in defiance of the federal govt. laws? (ie: medical marijuana, etc.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Tam said:
This will be my final comment on this issue as all good debates do have a time limit even if it has to end in deadlock and we can let THE PEOPLE be the judge.

In the big picture, it matters little what I believe as long as the Supreme Court and everyone that files a case with them believe they are the highest authority on what is Constitutional and what is not and have final say through their power of Judicial Review.

When a case is lost at the Supreme Court there is no other court to hear the case and it is DONE. The only thing that can be done at that point is to CHANGE the rules/laws so the next time it comes into question the case can be won on a constitutional basis.

Example If Obama still wants Obamacare all he has to do is take the part the lower court found unconstitutional out before it hits the Higher courts. BUT he can't do that as according to him and his lawyers the whole plan will crumble if that part is eliminated. When the Court in Florida ruled one part unconstitutional, the whole bill had to be ruled Unconstitutional because the Dems did not put any statements in the monster bill that says it can be severed and ruled on part by part.

When the one part IE the mandate to force people to buy something they don't want, was ruled Unconstitutional the whole bill had to be included in the ruling. IF the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling the whole thing is DEAD IN THE WATER, and the Dems will have to take it back and change the offending parts so if challenged again it can pass muster. If GOD FORBID the Supreme Court rules against the Florida lower court ruling the whole bill is law and the US is bankrupt.

AS for the election rules the state has the right to say who is put on their State ballots so the states are just DEFINING THE RULES to say what is required as proof of qualifications. I see this as a good move and hope the legislation passed but I would not be surprised if the Dems challenge the actions all the way to the Supreme Court especially if it is going to knock their candidate out after he has service for a term under the cloak of secrecy. If the American voters over 200 years ago would have defined the rules on the Supreme Court powers to make them a bit clearer we would not be debating a certain issue still today. :wink:

Your answer is as good as Mind on why the federal Government would go after one state Government's move to protect themselves from Illegal immigrants and not after another Government over Marijuana maybe it is a Left verses right thingy. But the thing is they are going after them in the COURTS and the case will be heard by the SUPREME COURT before all is said in done. :wink:

I know you said that would be your final comment, it does get tiring- BUT--- please-
we've both been good sports-- you missed one of my questions.

If NOT "Nullification" what label should be used to describe states passing laws in defiance of the federal govt. laws? (ie: medical marijuana, etc.)

Is the medical marijuana issue truly nullification?-- or is it just the normal way law enforcement works- with the state/local officers enforcing state laws and the federal officers enforcing the federal laws?.....Laws that often vary greatly...

Each U.S. state also passes their own marijuana laws, but when these laws are in conflict with the federal rules, the federal rules control.

Just because a state passes a law anti to the federal law does not nullify the Federal Law.....Just what government entity enforces it....



Federal Marijuana Laws
Legalmatch Law Library Managing Editor, Ken LaMance, Attorney at Law

What are "Federal" Marijuana Laws?
Federal marijuana laws are the laws that the federal government enacts to criminalize majijuana possession, sale, and cultivation. Each U.S. state also passes their own marijuana laws, but when these laws are in conflict with the federal rules, the federal rules control. Traditionally drug crimes are prosecuted at the state level. But because some states have decriminalized marijuana crimes (such as for medicinal purposes), federal prosecutions for marijuana possession/sale/cultivation are becoming more common.

The distinction is important, because while many states have rather lax laws concerning marijuana use, the Federal Government has some extremely strict penalties, some of which involve decades of jail time.

What Amount of Marijuana Do I Have to Carry to Violate Federal Law?

ANY amount. Unlike many states, the federal law does not qualify possession by amount. Possession of any amount of marijuana (even a single marijuana cigarette) is punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $1,000 on the first offense. The second offense carries a 15-day mandatory sentence, and can be extended for as long as two years in prison. Any possession after that gets a 90-day to three year prison term, and a $5,000 fine. (It should also be noted that distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no money is usually treated as simple possession).

What About Selling Marijuana?

This is where the federal law becomes extremely severe. The sale of anything less than 50 Kilograms of marijuana (which is obviously the majority of cases by far) is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a whopping $250,000 fine. Selling more than 50 Kilograms is generally something that is relegated to the criminal underworld, but the penalties get exponentially worse:

■50-100 Kilos distribution/cultivation: Up to 20 years in prison, with a $1,000,000 fine
■100-1000 Kilos distribution/cultivation: Mandatory 5 years, up to 40 years in prison, with a fine of $2,000,000
■1000 Kilos+ distribution/cultivation: 10 years to Life in prison, with a $4,000,000 fine
What's more, distribution of anything over 5 grams to a minor (under 21 years of age, not 18), OR within 1,000 feet of a school, housing project, youth center, video arcade, public pool, or playground automatically doubles all the punishments listed above (both jail time and fines).

Surprisingly, the federal government can even administer the death penalty for marijuana sale. This is reserved only for the heads of criminal enterprises that distribute more than 60 metric tons of marijuana OR annually make more than $20,000,000 from marijuana sales, but there have been past attempts to lower this threshold significantly. For instance, in 1994, it was proposed to introduce a mandatory death penalty for the second offense of smuggling only 50 grams of marijuana (the bill did not pass, however).

But if I am Licensed By My State to Grow Marijuana for Medicinal Purposes?...
Because the Federal Government does not recognize the legality of "medical marijuana," if you are prosecuted under federal law you will not be able to use any defense involving it. This means that even if your state has explicitly authorized you to grow marijuana, federal agents can still arrest you and you can be sentenced according to the guidelines above (and indeed this has happened). So if you grow marijuana legally in your state, you should contact a criminal lawyer about your rights, even if you haven't been arrested. An experienced criminal attorney will be able to explain all the risks in greater detail, as well as the complex interaction of federal and state laws in this issue.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marijuana-laws.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Tam said:
This will be my final comment on this issue as all good debates do have a time limit even if it has to end in deadlock and we can let THE PEOPLE be the judge.

In the big picture, it matters little what I believe as long as the Supreme Court and everyone that files a case with them believe they are the highest authority on what is Constitutional and what is not and have final say through their power of Judicial Review.

When a case is lost at the Supreme Court there is no other court to hear the case and it is DONE. The only thing that can be done at that point is to CHANGE the rules/laws so the next time it comes into question the case can be won on a constitutional basis.

Example If Obama still wants Obamacare all he has to do is take the part the lower court found unconstitutional out before it hits the Higher courts. BUT he can't do that as according to him and his lawyers the whole plan will crumble if that part is eliminated. When the Court in Florida ruled one part unconstitutional, the whole bill had to be ruled Unconstitutional because the Dems did not put any statements in the monster bill that says it can be severed and ruled on part by part.

When the one part IE the mandate to force people to buy something they don't want, was ruled Unconstitutional the whole bill had to be included in the ruling. IF the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling the whole thing is DEAD IN THE WATER, and the Dems will have to take it back and change the offending parts so if challenged again it can pass muster. If GOD FORBID the Supreme Court rules against the Florida lower court ruling the whole bill is law and the US is bankrupt.

AS for the election rules the state has the right to say who is put on their State ballots so the states are just DEFINING THE RULES to say what is required as proof of qualifications. I see this as a good move and hope the legislation passed but I would not be surprised if the Dems challenge the actions all the way to the Supreme Court especially if it is going to knock their candidate out after he has service for a term under the cloak of secrecy. If the American voters over 200 years ago would have defined the rules on the Supreme Court powers to make them a bit clearer we would not be debating a certain issue still today. :wink:

Your answer is as good as Mind on why the federal Government would go after one state Government's move to protect themselves from Illegal immigrants and not after another Government over Marijuana maybe it is a Left verses right thingy. But the thing is they are going after them in the COURTS and the case will be heard by the SUPREME COURT before all is said in done. :wink:

I know you said that would be your final comment, it does get tiring- BUT--- please-
we've both been good sports-- you missed one of my questions.

If NOT "Nullification" what label should be used to describe states passing laws in defiance of the federal govt. laws? (ie: medical marijuana, etc.)

As I see it the States didn't nullify the federal law against marijuana they refined the law the state is going to enforce to limit who they are going to charge with a crime to their own benefit. They are not going to charge a person needing marijuana for medical reasons as described by the State Medical Board as long as they buy from a fee paying LICENCED supplier and pay taxes on their prescription drug. That does not mean they are not going to charge a unlicenced pusher selling marijuana out of his car on the street corner to teenagers who are not paying taxes on their party suppies. It all comes down to the states pocket book and getting in on the action where they believe voters will support ie "MEDICAL" marijuana :wink: That does not mean the Federal Law is nullified as the Feds can still charge criminals under their law in the Federal Judicial system.

BTW I'm not the only one that didn't answer all questions asked :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam said:
This will be my final comment on this issue as all good debates do have a time limit even if it has to end in deadlock and we can let THE PEOPLE be the judge.

In the big picture, it matters little what I believe as long as the Supreme Court and everyone that files a case with them believe they are the highest authority on what is Constitutional and what is not and have final say through their power of Judicial Review.

When a case is lost at the Supreme Court there is no other court to hear the case and it is DONE. The only thing that can be done at that point is to CHANGE the rules/laws so the next time it comes into question the case can be won on a constitutional basis.

Example If Obama still wants Obamacare all he has to do is take the part the lower court found unconstitutional out before it hits the Higher courts. BUT he can't do that as according to him and his lawyers the whole plan will crumble if that part is eliminated. When the Court in Florida ruled one part unconstitutional, the whole bill had to be ruled Unconstitutional because the Dems did not put any statements in the monster bill that says it can be severed and ruled on part by part.

When the one part IE the mandate to force people to buy something they don't want, was ruled Unconstitutional the whole bill had to be included in the ruling. IF the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling the whole thing is DEAD IN THE WATER, and the Dems will have to take it back and change the offending parts so if challenged again it can pass muster. If GOD FORBID the Supreme Court rules against the Florida lower court ruling the whole bill is law and the US is bankrupt.

AS for the election rules the state has the right to say who is put on their State ballots so the states are just DEFINING THE RULES to say what is required as proof of qualifications. I see this as a good move and hope the legislation passed but I would not be surprised if the Dems challenge the actions all the way to the Supreme Court especially if it is going to knock their candidate out after he has service for a term under the cloak of secrecy. If the American voters over 200 years ago would have defined the rules on the Supreme Court powers to make them a bit clearer we would not be debating a certain issue still today. :wink:

Your answer is as good as Mind on why the federal Government would go after one state Government's move to protect themselves from Illegal immigrants and not after another Government over Marijuana maybe it is a Left verses right thingy. But the thing is they are going after them in the COURTS and the case will be heard by the SUPREME COURT before all is said in done. :wink:

I know you said that would be your final comment, it does get tiring- BUT--- please-
we've both been good sports-- you missed one of my questions.

If NOT "Nullification" what label should be used to describe states passing laws in defiance of the federal govt. laws? (ie: medical marijuana, etc.)

As I see it the States didn't nullify the federal law against marijuana they refined the law the state is going to enforce to limit who they are going to charge with a crime to their own benefit. They are not going to charge a person needing marijuana for medical reasons as described by the State Medical Board as long as they buy from a fee paying LICENCED supplier and pay taxes on their prescription drug. That does not mean they are not going to charge a unlicenced pusher selling marijuana out of his car on the street corner to teenagers who are not paying taxes on their party suppies. It all comes down to the states pocket book and getting in on the action where they believe voters will support ie "MEDICAL" marijuana :wink: That does not mean the Federal Law is nullified as the Feds can still charge criminals under their law in the Federal Judicial system.

BTW I'm not the only one that didn't answer all questions asked :wink:

Tam- if I missed one of your questions point it out and I'll have a go at it, I missed it somewhere!

Now- here is what I've been holding back:

10th Ammendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If you read the Constitution as it was written that is pretty hard to get around. You even posted that the SCOTUS was not given exclusive power to decide Constitutionality but have rather assumed that power over the years. by the way the SCOTUS has no enforcement authority!

Now marijuana laws- ( by the way, I don't smoke dope, I think it's stupid,I have trained my kids to stay away from it, but if someone wants to in a free country it's their brain and body,)
the fed.gov. needed an ammendment (18th) to control a substance. (alcohol) then the people revolted so hard, they wouldn't obey the law, they wouldn't convict in a jury trial etc. that they were forced to repeal with another ammendment.(21st) So clearly the power to control a substance was not given to the fed. gov. by the Constitution so it was reserved to the states or the people. federal marijuana laws are an usurpation of power- a bluff! that is why the feds do not challenge state medical marijuana laws. the feds accomplice is their own court system, and ultimatly the SCOTUS, all federal employees and as you posted Tam-
they win "political victories"

the 9th Ammendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


The Constitution is all about limiting government.

WeThePeople1.jpg
 
Top