When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.
While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with legislation on firearms and health care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal power – marijuana activism.
According to our friends at NORML, there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the verge of taking it to the next level – full legalization.
According to a report in the SF Chronicle yesterday:
Two prominent East Bay marijuana advocates got clearance from the state today to try to put a pot-legalization initiative on the November 2010 California ballot.
This isn’t your run-of-the-mill “medical marijuana” bill – that’s already legal in CA. If approved by voters, the bill would:
allow anyone over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana sales.
Any honest person reading the Constitution through the intent and understanding of the founders would recognize that the federal government has no delegated power to be involved in the marijuana issue, in any way.
Keep in mind, though, that the federal courts (and the DEA), don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about it. They’ve interpreted it in their own way, and have made it quite clear that they don’t recognize state marijuana laws as “valid.”
But, as we say here in California, thanks for your opinion, DC, we’ve got our own.
Well thats a very facinating argument your positing Mr. Patric Henry and if what you are saying is true, then we can rejoice as we force Barack Obama from the office of the President. The Constitution requires that only a natural born US Citizen can become president. This would be impossible unless you were born in DC. He was born in Hawaii or somewhere outside of US territory and therefore cannot truely be president.
I live in California and am all for making marijuna legal – but only if like for tobacco, they ban it from being smoked in public, both indoors and outdoors, including $500 arrests and fines for smoking it outdoors in all public parks and recreation areas, like they do in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Hayward, Belmont and other progressive cities inside California.
This is the beginning of the end for the federal government because once nullification becomes legally recognized by both democrats and republicans then neither side can deny the other sides right to nullify anything they believe in such as Health care and gay marriage.
Bravo, Tim!!
"People need to learn that freedom is a two-way street that requires acceptance of things that are none of their business to begin with."
===========
You are incorrect. That statement has a fatal flaw and the 10th is not freedom to do ANYTHING one pleases. It still has to be compatible with the natural rights of others.
My "business" begins the moment your "business" collides with mine. With rights come responsibilities. You have no reasonable means of enforcing those responsibilities.
At what point does my freedom to be "free from you" kick in? Are you willing to face punishment for encroaching upon my rights? How do you propose enforcing that? There is *no* realistic or effective means of doing so that I am aware of.
Do you think that it will be any simpler or less expensive than the current attempt at a system of enforcement? The threshold and area of effect for a set of chemicals dispensed via the atmosphere is much more difficult to determine than one that is administered directly and internally.
The only means of doing so currently is to force activity as far underground and from mainstream as possible. Yes, expensive, but more effective and cheaper than the alternative. If the effects of this enforcement were not felt, then this thread would not exist, rampant misspellings and all.
Marijuana smokers fight TWO problems, each one of which is already a demonstrated problem with each of two other substances. Atmospheric administration and intoxication. A third is shared by all three, addiction. While it may be measurably "less" than the other two, it DOES still exist.
The atmosphere.
That is currently the biggest problem facing smokers. Cigarettes deliver their payload via air. It is nowhere near a 100% efficient operation.
As a result, the claimed detrimental health effects are not limited to the primary user. All smokers of any substance have an "area of effect" that reaches beyond the primary user and pollute long term any enclosed environment that the activity is performed in. The outdoors are generally considered regenerative and self cleaning due to natural processes but may suffer localised short term contamination.
As an illustrative extreme example, it is possible to ingest recognizable tobacco smoke following behind another driver in traffic. In a simple enclosed atmosphere, the situation is irrefutable. Secondary unwilling individuals present will be subject to measurable doses.
There is no right that I am aware of that allows you to subject others unwillingly to harm at your discretion. Nominally "Their business."
How do you effectively address that in your bid for legalization? When you find that answer, you will help tobacco smokers greatly. They FAR outnumber you and haven't a solution yet.
Intoxication.
Additionally, the resulting effects of intentional administration have measurable psychoactive effects altering the mental state of users such that it reduces their mental and thus motor capacity in safety situations.
If sober and capable of rational judgement, would you feel more, less, or the same safety where a pilot at the controls of a high-performance aircraft you were aboard was intoxicated?
Again, like alcohol in this case, enforcement is VERY difficult. So, at what point does your activity infringe upon my rights and freedom?
Considering that substance has a double threat as compared to two other problem substances, I don't see a case for complicating enforcement issues.
There are already existing enforcement nightmares with cigarrettes and alcohol and abrogated responsibilities to not abuse others rights in the name of rights to abuse oneself.
Just as with alcohol and cigarettes, the social benefits of marijuana are negligible, the social harm is tangible and measurable. The health benefits are under study, but there will eventually be better alternatives as the effects of the compunds are studied, reproduced synthetically and administered in a controlled manner.
Until then, medical uses are no excuse for non-medical usage.
Your logic could be construed to the following "I drive a smart car, others drive F-250s, IF an F-250 should hit me, it COULD kill me, thus your driving an F-250 infringes on my right to safety". This slippery slope logic can be applied to anything that people use or consume. On the intoxication statement, so what if i am intoxicated?If i break the law, then bust my butt, if i am just intoxicated, not bothering another soul, only your ideas of morality and decorum, don't partake in exchange of ideas or conversation with me and leave me the F alone. You my friend are espousing some sort of quasi-dictatorial "lest no-one offends" society that, frankly already kind of exists, see North Korea. Remember control is an illusion, you can never control one's appetites, only react to behaviors, without ever actually nullifying the appetite. In the mean time, move to montana, homestead, and completely shut yourself from society as that is the only way your logic would truly be applicable.
Look! Patrick
If keep insisting on calling me a subject.
Then you are only going to get from me, what you disserve.
Hi Patrick
All this information that you have presented so far, is very important for people to read, However, I am a little concerned that you may believe that I have not already researched these.
You also seem to be a little confused, by thinking that I am not a US citizen.
If you believe that one day I may not be, that’s ok, because one day I may not.
Hi JMB,
# JMB Says:
October 8th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Hi Patrick
You are more then welcome to keep trying to enlighten me Patrick, if you so wish, but don’t be to worried about me personally, I know full well my situation.
My Identity as a citizen can not be changed, by you or anybody else, this can only be achieved by my own actions.
If you want to refer to yourself as a subject, that is your business.
-JMB
See U.S. v Slater.. saying it’s so (JMB is a Citizen of a State rather than a U.S. citizen) don’t make it so. Slater tried this and was convicted. See also Law of Presumptions & and the “Ashwander Rules” with special attention to rule six.
6. “#The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”
As JMB has a Social Security #, voter registration card, FOID card, Driver’s License etc, he has sworn on several occasions to be a U.S. citizen.. the presumption made by “any court of the land” is that he is a U.S. citizen and has enjoyed “benefits” of being a U.S. citizen (rule six).
Additionally, if you enjoyed the Citizenship status of a Citizen of a State as claimed, you would have possessed the sophistication to rebut my presumptions with “Finding of Fact & Conclusions of Law” (something skilled Lawyers & Jurists do and a Layperson don’t.. lol).
“”Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”
— Mark Twain
Warm Regards,
P.H.
Remember though, you are stating case law, the supreme court was never intended to use case law as a sole basis for intrepretation of the constitution. They were supposed to take the constitution on its face and be the final arbiter on cases affecting citizens rights versus the federal govs, no further, and not use political affiliation or legal jargon to taint or cover their intentions. The history of court decisions has not been consistant, even with the same court deciding cases of the same flavor, demonstrating that politics and narrow intrepretations when politically expedient, were overwhelmingly used to decide federal law. The constitution was written in the plain language of the time, akin to the bible being translated into the geographical vernacular, so the PEOPLE could understand what they were buying, not " just trust me, I am a lawyer, you can't possibly understand the constitution, let me tell you what it means". The founding fathers were specific and tried to avoid ambiguous language and set no mandate to the court for use of case law to decide all cases, they were trusted to hold their oath and allegiance to the constitution first, politics last.
Remember though, you are stating case law, the supreme court was never intended to use case law as a sole basis for intrepretation of the constitution. They were supposed to take the constitution on its face and be the final arbiter on cases affecting citizens rights versus the federal govs, no further, and not use political affiliation or legal jargon to taint or cover their intentions. The history of court decisions has not been consistant, even with the same court deciding cases of the same flavor, demonstrating that politics and narrow intrepretations when politically expedient, were overwhelmingly used to decide federal law. The constitution was written in the plain language of the time, akin to the bible being translated into the geographical vernacular, so the PEOPLE could understand what they were buying, not " just trust me, I am a lawyer, you can't possibly understand the constitution, let me tell you what it means". The founding fathers were specific and tried to avoid ambiguous language and set no mandate to the court for use of case law to decide all cases, they were trusted to hold their oath and allegiance to the constitution first, politics last.
Hi Patrick
You are more then welcome to keep trying to enlighten me Patrick, if you so wish, but don’t be to worried about me personally, I know full well my situation.
My Identity as a citizen can not be changed, by you or anybody else, this can only be achieved by my own actions.
If you want to refer to yourself as a subject, that is your business.
“As Americans, we would be wise to adopt an approach allowing individuals to grow a little marijuana for personal use. It would put the illegal drug dealers out of business if users could legally grow a small amount for themselves and/or share it with others.”
Concerned parent, this is spot on. If one is concerned with the violence associated with drug use by the corporate media, this simple fact should be glaring. The illegal drug trade is the source of a whole host of societal problems, violence, theft, crime and underground empires to name a few. Legalization would indeed remove the income that sustains these violent organizations just as it would nullify the violent agencies that wage the ‘war on drugs’.
Hi JMB,
One more item..
# JMB Says:
October 4th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“The only thing that is truly obvious here Mr. Constitutional student is that you have attempted to promote a ridicules reading of my state constitution.
And to tell you the truth, Patrick Henry, I don’t care, if you do think, I should not defend what is holy to me, from dogs like you.”
-JMB
This constitution has little to do with you (see Bill of Rights section 1 of the IL State Constitution @ http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm), so why would you worship it or consider it “holy to me”? lol
Here’s the proof that most “subjects of the Fed miss” (the condition of Slavery is predicated upon Ignorance as per Dred Scott v. Sandford).. Please note that this one of several examples:
At SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
This right “to keep and bear arms” is reserved for Citizens of a State …see (430 ILCS 65/0.01) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑0.1)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1324.) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC%2BSAFETY&ActName=Firearm%2BOwners%2BIdentification%2BCard%2BAct.
The citation for authority for the FOID Act is quoted as the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 923)..noticeably absent in this Act is any reference to SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS (this protection simply does not apply to U.S. citizens..lol)
See application for a FOID application here.. ( http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/Smart%20FOID%20Application.pdf ) at question 1a ..Are you a United States citizen or a naturalized citizen? lol
My guess is that JMB (if an IL resident) has a FOID license (and has registered to VOTE as a U.S. citizen .. (see voter registration application here http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/VotingInformation/PDF/R-19.pdf this is where JMB swears he is a U.S. citizne 10. Voter Affidavit – I swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the United States; etc. and lol).
Hope this helps your understanding of your status.
Warm Regards,
Patrick Henry
Hi JMB,
# JMB Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“A better question might be, how in the heck did I lose my birthright as a Citizen of a State with unalienable rights and fall into the miserable condition (shared by so called Freed Men ..formally the Slave class) as a “subject of the Federal Government” under the 14th?”
-P.H.
And a better answer by me, would be, to firstly deny that partisan premise of yours, before I ever consider bothering to answer such a foolish question, for I have never been a slave, nor am I currently a subject of this federal government, nor is there any law, or constitutional amendment that has ever made that claim possible, and I have always by Gods authority, and not mans, retained my unalienable rights.
-JMB
I suppose you could deny “that partisan premise” shared by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 7th & 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals and the attorneys representing the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association & McDonald.. all making their arguments (soon to be heard by the SCOTUS) all predicated upon the 14th Amendment (U.S. citizens, subject to the jurisdiction thereof..) . .. But then you would be also considered by this forum to be “The Happiest Person in Your Village”..lol
Regarding your claim “nor am I currently a subject of this federal government”, you might have a look at that pesky Social Security Application and the SS# you put on your Bank Accounts, Student Loan Applications, Public School enrollment, Driver & Professional Licenses etc. See question #3 CITIZENSHIP..U.S. citizen? on this SS application!! lol here is the link to the SS-5 application http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf . Read it and weep (or tell it to the Judge when you are prosecuted for unjust enrichment..lol).
“There is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own.” . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship. ”
256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro vs. Jordan
“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,”
US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
Yours in Observing Cognitive Dissonance as a Common Mental Disorder,
P.H.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/chicago_bio.pdf
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits/CertPetitionChicago.pdf
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people’s ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as “I am a good person” or “I made the right decision.” The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one’s choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
“A better question might be, how in the heck did I lose my birthright as a Citizen of a State with unalienable rights and fall into the miserable condition (share by so called Freed Men ..formally the Slave class) as a “subject of the Federal Government” under the 14th?”
And a better answer by me, would be, to firstly deny that partisan premise of yours, before I ever consider bothering to answer such a foolish question, for I have never been a slave, nor am I currently a subject of this federal government, nor is there any law, or constitutional amendment that has ever made that claim possible, and I have always by Gods authority, and not mans, retained my unalienable rights.
Hi Ike Hall,
# Ike Hall Says:
October 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“”@Patrick Henry: If it is true what you say, then the 10th Amendment Center is worthless until the States change their Constitutions to be in conformance once again with the original Constitutions. Any advice as to how to get started?”"
To answer this question, we must first consider the 10th Amendment as it relates to the Federal Government (limited to 18 enumerated powers) and the two classes of citizens. A simple answer is
“the class of citizenship should be considered first” as the 10th (and 9th) have little or no relationship to a U.S. citizens classification (as subjects of the Federal Government are not necessarily
recognized under the first eight Amendments, but certainly not considered under the 9th or 10th). This class of citizens (under the 14th) are not “the people” referenced under the 10th. I would humbly suggest that a change of “citizenship” (a return to a Citizen of a State status.. more easily said than done..) should logically precede revamping the modern “New Order of Things” State Constitutions (returning to a Republican form of Government). Please see below for the rational basis of this instant matter as fact:
Amendment 10: 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.
The Supreme Court first construed the Fourteenth Amendment phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” in the seminal Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872). The Court ruled that this Clause includes only those rights that “are dependent upon citizenship of the United States, and not citizenship of a State.” Id. at 80. These national citizenship rights include the right to “free access to its seaports,” to “use the navigable waters,” to “peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances,” and to “become a citizen of any state.” Id. at 79-80. In Presser, the Court held that a pre-existing right like the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” or any other Natural/ Inalienable right is not a privilege or immunity of United States citizenship because it is not “in any manner dependent upon [the Constitution] for its existence.”116 U.S. at 265. Simply put, the purported 14th was not properly ratified (Southern States were occupied by the U.S. Military during the Reconstruction Era, under duress and not properly represented makes this amendment a “nullity” unless a citizen makes an election to gain protection or benefit from the Fed “outside” the U.S. Constitution’s framework), citizens whom make an “election” to act as U.S. citizens do so under commercial law (see Black’s Law Sixth Edition, a “person” acts as a “commercial entity” not to be confused with a Natural Person with Natural Rights that existed prior to the U.S. Constitution).
“It should be pointed out that after the south surrendered there was no longer any organized Southern Confederate States, only federally administered former States that became divided into military districts whose inhabitants were primarily citizens of the United States. The problem with the administration of these former rebel States was with President Andrew Johnson who drew opposition from Republicans. Senator Jacob Howard called the temporary former rebel State governments set up by President Johnson “bogus governments” and “unconstitutional,” resting “upon military edicts of the president of the United States, so far as they have any foundation and operation.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 2nd Sess., 1365 (1867))”"
and
Bingham (U.S. Rep. & co-author of the purported 14th Amendment) made a seemingly confusing statement several years after the adoption of the amendment which in recent times has gathered much attention in supporting the theory the Fourteenth Amendment intended to make the entire first Eight Amendments a limitation upon the States in regards to their own resident citizens. He is often quoted as saying in an highly partisan speech on March 31, 1871:
Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution of the United States … These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.11
Note that Bingham makes a clear distinction between State citizens and citizens of the United States. Additionally, moments later, Bingham goes on to add in this same speech that it had always been “decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States.”
It was Bingham’s theory (Webster’s ‘injunctions and prohibitions’)12 that the first Eight Amendments do indeed apply against the executive or judicial officers of a State through their oath to recognize all the securities recognized under the federal Constitution in terms of citizens of other States within a jurisdiction of some State. Bingham felt this oath might be enforced under the Fourteenth Amendment – which enforcement powers was lacking under the original Constitution. It is a weak theory because it suggests officers of a State are required to recognize limitations upon only Congress. (Bingham made a seemingly confusing statement several years after the adoption of the amendment which in recent times has gathered much attention in supporting the theory the Fourteenth Amendment intended to make the entire first Eight Amendments a limitation upon the States in regards to their own resident citizens. He is often quoted as saying in an highly partisan speech on March 31, 1871:
Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution of the United States … These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.11
Note that Bingham makes a clear distinction between State citizens and citizens of the United States. Additionally, moments later, Bingham goes on to add in this same speech that it had always been “decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States.”
It was Bingham’s theory (Webster’s ‘injunctions and prohibitions’)12 that the first Eight Amendments do indeed apply against the executive or judicial officers of a State through their oath to recognize all the securities recognized under the federal Constitution in terms of citizens of other States within a jurisdiction of some State. Bingham felt this oath might be enforced under the Fourteenth Amendment – which enforcement powers was lacking under the original Constitution. It is a weak theory because it suggests officers of a State are required to recognize limitations upon only Congress. (Bingham made a seemingly confusing statement several years after the adoption of the amendment which in recent times has gathered much attention in supporting the theory the Fourteenth Amendment intended to make the entire first Eight Amendments a limitation upon the States in regards to their own resident citizens. He is often quoted as saying in an highly partisan speech on March 31, 1871:Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution of the United States … These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.11Note that Bingham makes a clear distinction between State citizens and citizens of the United States. Additionally, moments later, Bingham goes on to add in this same speech that it had always been “decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States.”It was Bingham’s theory (Webster’s ‘injunctions and prohibitions’)12 that the first Eight Amendments do indeed apply against the executive or judicial officers of a State through their oath to recognize all the securities recognized under the federal Constitution in terms of citizens of other States within a jurisdiction of some State. Bingham felt this oath might be enforced under the Fourteenth Amendment – which enforcement powers was lacking under the original Constitution. It is a weak theory because it suggests officers of a State are required to recognize limitations upon only Congress.”
In closing, P.H. is a big fan of the 10th Amendment Center, this being said, the original purpose of State Government’s (under the 10th) were to protect the rights of their State Citizens. These State Citizens have disappeared like the proverbial Buffalo & Indigenous American populations (American Indians). As the original state governments that were Republican in Form have “morphed” to accommodate “residents” (note: U.S. citizens are citizens of the District of Columbia .. and not of the state where they reside) and the Federal Law .. all 50 Titles of the U.S. Code (pertaining exclusively to residents/U.S. citizens and without consideration of Citizens of a State that enjoy immunity ..), it is my opinion that this site speaks for a very small minority (the remainder are under a delusion of being something that they are not.. see NRA v Chicago etc. ).
A better question might be, how in the heck did I lose my birthright as a Citizen of a State with unalienable rights and fall into the miserable condition (share by so called Freed Men ..formally the Slave class) as a “subject of the Federal Government” under the 14th?
Warm Regards,
Patrick Henry
I enjoyed the read but if you smoke marijuana and find that you are becoming tired and de motivated and you do not want to quit using marijuana. Try vaporizing your marijuana and you will get more a of a clean headed high buzz.
Like tobacco, marijuana smoke contains toxins that are known to be hazardous to the respiratory system. Among them are the highly carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, a prime suspect in cigarette-related cancers. These toxins are essentially a byproduct of combustion, separate from the pharmaceutically active components of marijuana, known as cannabinoids, which include THC. When you burn marijuana it produces quite a lot of tar. Pipes and joints generally do not have proper filters. Bongs are not the answer, because you inhale concentrated smoke.
The vaporizer certainly reduces the level of tar. You will not have to worry about the harmful carcinogens your body is absorbing when you inhale marijuana smoke.
I will suggest 2 places that I use the first one is Legal Bud!
The second suggestion I have is Gass City!
The federal government believes in might makes right. They do not care aboutrights they only care about power (theirs). The rich rule and the poor (you and I) are slaves.
@Patrick Henry: If it is true what you say, then the 10th Amendment Center is worthless until the States change their Constitutions to be in conformance once again with the original Constitutions. Any advice as to how to get started?
The only thing that is truly obvious here Mr. Constitutional student is that you have attempted to promote a ridicules reading of my state constitution.
And to tell you the truth, Patrick Henry, I don’t care, if you do think, I should not defend what is holy to me, from dogs like you.
Hi JMB,
Thanks for taking my text and intentionally misquoting me “out of context”. (a cowardly act of Character Assassination or kill the messenger for pointing out the obvious??)
For those that are interested, it was clear to anyone with the reading skills of a 5th grader (including the Moderators of this site)..that Alan Dershowitz rather than the IL constitution of 1970 was the source (their are many others) of this conclusion/ determination.. (Please see below)
“”In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant (see Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor’s comments on this subject) and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”"
-P.H.
# JMB Says:
October 4th, 2009 at 2:25 am
“In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”
-JMB
“”Well, that was a disappointment, I just spent a lot of my otherwise precious time looking for this specific statement, in my Illinois state constitution, to no avail.”"
-JMB
It would appear that JMB is either intellectually dishonest (mean spirited) or has profound problems with comprehending the English language.
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
-Matthew 7:6 (NKJV)
Warm Regards,
P.H.
Great comment responses, every one worth my reading, thanks.
“In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”
Well, that was a disappointment, I just spent a lot of my otherwise precious time looking for this specific statement, in my Illinois state constitution, to no avail.
“”"When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.”"”
As a student of Constitutional Law I find it amusing, as the author suggests any matter of controversy between Federal v State jurisdiction (regardless of subject matter) may be contested “within the boundaries of that state”. The simply rational basis of this claim is unfounded in reality as these referenced “boundaries” or Territorial Jurisdiction claims were removed or redacted from all state constitutions beginning in the mid 1960′s to the early 1970′s. To verify this as fact, a simple comparative of the new state Constitutions (or revisions) to the old make this clear (see Illinois Constitutions of 1818, 1848 and 1870 at Article One http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1818, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1870 and compare to Illinois Constitution of 1970 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1970 Oooops no Territorial Jurisdiction claim here!!). Several other modifications were made to state constitutions at this time including but not limited to removing any protection or recognition of American Common Law, removing many protections against arbitrary arrest (the General Assembly was given the right, not only to abolish the grand jury, but to limit its use.. no need to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment or Sworn Affidavit to make an arrest and incarcerate). These substantial changes were made to better conform to “The New Order of Things” (without a clear state territorial jurisdiction claim, the state government’s were free to impose Federal Law without regard to the SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE) as per Constitution Conventional Scholars Elmer Gertz & Edward S. Gilbreth (both were active parties involved with Illinois Constitution Convention of 1969 and co-authors of “Charter for a New Age” & Quest For A Constitution: A Man Who Wouldn’t Quit”). It also important to note that the “fundamental element” of the state being Citizens of a State (collectively known as We the People) had accepted Federal citizenship under the purported 14th Amendment.. (See Social Security application at http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf with special attention to question #3 CITIZENSHIP, this is where Americans make the election to become U.S. citizens and waive their Natural Rights and protection under the American Common Law as Citizens of a State). With no State Citizens, the State Governments that were “Republican in Nature” became obsolete.
The states today can best be described as “Quasi Federal” and certainly not Republican in Nature (or considered the original state governments “Incorporated into the Union”).
In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant (see Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor’s comments on this subject) and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.
Warm Regards,
Patrick Henry
@Patrick Henry:
Who cares?
All that legal stuff is just mumbo jumbo – it doesn’t matter. If a mass of people refuse to cooperate with that “law” or any other law as the federal government demands of us – that’s all that matters. It’s the practical reality. If the people of California decide to stand up and say NO to the federal government, D.C. is sure going to have a hard time trying to enforce their opinions on us.
"In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant"
At what point was the tenth amendment removed from the constitution? No matter what has changed it is still there and is usable by anyone as long as it is there and it says any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states. This gives states a wide range of powers for itself and the right to govern over its boundries as it sees fit no matter what citizenship status a person may have (either federal or state) the state still has the power to enforce laws over its borders by its own governmental process that it has established for itself.
Individual state constitutions that has forbidden itself from using its powers such as southern state constitutions that forbid them from leaving the union again are restricted by those provisions but in my state we have no such provision so why or any state that did not sign on to the new movement have to comply with those state's constitutions since a state constitution governs that state only.
Note to “terry_freeman”: “Sale” and “possession” are two totally different things. My home state of Texas has dozens of dry cities and counties, but they do not prohibit possession. In fact, on the highway you can always tell when you’re going from a dry county to a wet one — all the taverns & liquor stores just across the county line, where people buy booze to take back home. Texans have an old saying about Southern Baptists — “they vote dry and drink wet.”
Something similar will soon be happening at the state level. Massachusetts recently enacted huge tax hikes on alcohol, so residents will simply drive to tax-free New Hampshire for their booze.
I really don’t want any reefer addicts injecting reefer into their eyeballs and nodding out on my doorstep. Everyone knows reefer kills or why would it be called ‘killa weed’?
Hell, making reefer legal would take jobs away from Americans like COPS, courts, jails, jail furniture manufacturers, scum-of-the-earth lawyers, legislators and put a considerable portion of the CIAs’ illicit funding at risk.
And don’t forget everytime you inject a joint into your bloodstream you’re helping Osama bin Hidin’ destroy what he hates the most, your freedom.
JMB writes (asks?):
“And will it be legal to smoke this stuff in front of our own children, or any body else’s, for that matter.”
Well, JMB, I suppose that would depend on how authoritarian the voters are in a given jurisdiction. So far, most people haven’t objected to the ingestion of other drugs in front of children. People routinely eat prescription narcotics, drink alcohol, and smoke cigarettes in front of children.
I think it is a bad idea to break laws in front of one’s children as that may make them complicit by being a witness. But, why should engaging in legal behavior in front of children be illegal? It’s probably not a good idea to expose kids to bad habits so as to not influence them to take up the behavior, but to criminalize this is another matter.
I can only imagine the outrage among some “patriots” if groups of pot smokers were to lobby lawmakers to prohibit the use of tobacco or alcohol in homes where there are children. People need to learn that freedom is a two-way street that requires acceptance of things that are none of their business to begin with.
“Dry counties” are downright silly, when you think of it. You buy some beer in county A, where it is legal. You want to visit your friends in county C, where it is also legal. In between, you must travel through county B, which is a “dry” county. You pray that the State troopers do not stop and inspect your trunk, lest you be arrested and fined. How dumb is that? Do we want to encourage similar stops for marijuana?
Portugal legalized drugs in 2001. The world did not end. Their society did not turn into a wild drug-driven bacchnnal.
As for driving under the influence – let the behavior of the driver be the yardstick. If the driver is weaving, or otherwise driving in an unsafe manner, that’s cause for stopping the driver – whether the root is fatigue, alcohol, flu medication, sugar levels, or dope.
I believe that there are many other concerns involved here that should be addressed preemptively by those proper authorities, (the state lawmakers,) so as to make reasonable this new freeness of attitude to all those that might be inevitably affected.
The contentious possibilities creatable between that of a free smoking village and a not so free city are much more complicated then they might appear at first.
Are there practical ways to judge how stoned someone might be when driving a car.
And will it be legal to smoke this stuff in front of our own children, or any body else’s, for that matter.
The United States Constitution, and each individual state constitution admonishes that our state legislators have these responsibilities of properly addressing these issues.
Somebody better start getting busy hear, and I don’t think it should be those ever trustworthy advocacy groups either.
There are states where alcohol can be sold but there are dry counties within those states. In one case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, booze is actually sold by the state, but individual counties can opt out, and there are dry counties there. Alabama has dry counties and so does Oklahoma. And there are other states with similar systems as well.
California is a big state with a big diverse population, and individual counties and municipalities should be allowed to opt out of pot legalization if they so choose. The legalization advocates would have a far less difficult time getting their bill passed if they included a provision to give final authority to local governments.
Sometimes the discussion about the medical use of marijuana gets mixed together with concerns about generalized legalization of marijuana. Marijuana in various forms, not usually smoked, has been used as medicine for centuries in many parts of the world. Marijuana appears to provide relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms, with fewer ill effects and a greater margin of safety than many other classes of drugs. In particular, marijuana is safer than the narcotic drugs commonly administered for pain, and safer even than the non-narcotic drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen and related compounds that are responsible for a few hundred fatal poisonings per year (http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm).
From the American College of Physicians, 2008: “Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids. Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. The science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use.”
Link to the American College of Physicians paper on medical marijuana at http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf
As Americans, we would be wise to adopt an approach allowing individuals to grow a little marijuana for personal use. It would put the illegal drug dealers out of business if users could legally grow a small amount for themselves and/or share it with others. Limit the size of the growing area or the number of plants, and put a small user-fee on it to cover administrative costs, something like a fishing license.
One possibility:$100 per year for a permit to cultivate a dozen plants.
It’s a win-win.
I think we can view Los Angeles as a test case for Marijuana legalization, as there are now more dispensaries in my part of the San Fernando Valley than 7-11s. I’d like to get an objective opinion from cops on the street as to how this has affected the trends of crime and violence in the area. If the consensus is a decrease in violence and criminal acts, then I would have a hard time seeing why the people of the CA Republic would change their minds after legalizing.
In terms of what personnel are entrusted with the prevention of Federal abuses, I still refer to Sheriff Mack from AZ. He’s about the furthest thing from a pothead that I can imagine, but is very much opposed to the Federal war on drugs. His point that Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement personnel is very interesting.
Michael Boldin is right on point – again – and the court has said so!
Read Nigro v. U.S. where the Supreme Court held:
” in interpreting the Act (Anti-Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785) … we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid…”
This is still good law. Nothing has changed in Article I Sec. 8 of the organic document called the Constitution to grant the authority to Congress since it was first penned.
Politicians do not produce any commodity for our daily use…both State and Federal politicians. Their only focus is on getting elected and then re-elected! Their perception of how to do this is to make wild promises of spending on Yours and My pet projects. Mencken is quoted as having said, “every political campaign is a sneak preview of the sale of stolen goods.”
These politicians only seek re-election so they can continue their own harvest – of our livelihood. Yet, they all know mankind will buckle when it comes money.
1.Federal Government enacts the Federal Reserve Act.
2.Enactment allows the feds to borrow and spend without restraint. Taking as their collateral from their Borrower – a.)EVERY Deed of Trust on EVERY piece of property, or chattel on every piece of personal property where the funds come directly or indirectly through the Federal Reserve; and, b.) every social security number (and the accompanying right to receive the income tax associated with that number).
3.Fed knows the States will buckle to their (the feds) wishes by funding various state initiatives.
4.Fed grows its “hold” on all aspects of life by unbridled spending at every level on every facet of American life.
5.Fed constantly justifies its unbridled expansion into natural born American state citizens lives by controlling money.
Money for Clunkers
Money for Food
Money for Housing
Money for charity.
Money for television.
Money for retirement (social security).
Money for school lunchs.
Money for teacher retirement.
Money for roads.
Money for agriculture.
Money for the Arts.
Money for ACORN.
Money for college.
Money for home loans.
Money for advertising the U.S. Postal service.
Money, Money, Money
With the Money comes the strings. Stop taking the money and the strings become unattached that same moment.
This is amazing news. I am glad that CA has joined the fight for freedom.
Why would the govt leagalize the cure for many types of cancer? Why would the govt allow for a end of the drug war? The drug war consumes billions a year in tax dollars to futher federal authority. Why dose the govt want to end many of the so called drug wars? With no criminal prosicution for those found with drugs there would be no reason to run or be affraid. There for there can really be no shoot outs. No need to continue to arm feds and cops with more powerful weapons which only raise taxes and keep no one safe. No need for “criminals” to be affraid of 20yrs for an ounce. Why would the federal govt want you to realise that you dont need them? The fda will approve of any drug they can enforce or control that will not instantly kill you. Nor can the drug have “severe” reactions in a mass populus. Marijuana is the only known drug that you cant O.D. on. The only way you can die from Mj is to choke on a bud as you try to swallow it hole. Why does the govt want to give up costly kemo for a plant that cost 25 bucks a year to grow? The answer is quite simple the US Govt is the biggest importer of illegal drugs and distrubitor in this country. Not to mention the propaganda and control the govt gets by keeping it illegal. Sadly i do not see this drug being legal here in the states. It is a topic that truly saddends me. 1/3 of the population have been arrested for mj violation. 1/3 of the population cant work for the govt cant get college loans cant qualify for many top end jobs due to a conviction of sitting home getting high. They didnt rape anyone kill anyone just minded there own business. Yes not all convictions were victomless but the majority were. Because of a plant. But you can legally get drugs that kill your sens of smell and taste. You can legal get drugs that change your mood leagally get drugs that give you cancer trouble pissing dizzyness cause suicidal thoughts uncontrolled bl;eading and the list goes on. But a drug that only gives the munchies and gives you a time of increased creativity is sooo bad
I am not from California, so what I have to say about this issue dose not matter very much, however.
I think it would be foolhardy for these state legislators to surrender their responsibilities regarding this particular issue.
I do not think it is proper for organized advocates to be writing up any laws, a state citizen can not vote an advocacy group out of office.
And what if 51 percent, over 49 percent, of this states population decide in 2012 that they no longer like this new law, should legislators now be in the business of searching out advocacy groups who agree with this fickle nature of a 1 percent swinging door population.
I think that every citizen who votes for a law, or against a law, should be removed from their office without any further delay.
Maybe we should brake this kind of reasoning all the way down to those individual streets in our own neighborhoods, and may the best street gang, win the day.
I wonder what kind of bribe it will take to turn my neighbors no vote into a yes vote, that’s not against the law is it?
This sounds to me like the California state legislators are planing to throw their people under the proverbial judicial buss.
LOCAL governments decide how to handle it, not THE STATE OF CA. This is significant in my mind…what does local mean? State? County? District?
Michael Boldin a note for future needs. Disputes will doubtlessly arise upon the implementation of Federal Escrow Accounts as well as expose the general unfairness of federal funds that will require an exact accounting of the proportional spending and taxation in and from every State by the Federal government.
In other-words we will eventually require a generally agreed upon number for the cost each state may legitimate clam to be robed from in this regard in terms of everything they don’t want, and how much they might be allowed to take from their Federal Contribution in order to pay for instead of taking the unconstitutional string attached spending.
This kind of math could possibly be done with computers, but the real issue will be establish an independent 3rd party source that all states could point to in justifying their actions.
Because we are talking about them robbing other states if they take too much, and being robed from if they don’t take enough, and the states Will be inclined to disagree on such things.
It is vital that find someway to provide a 3rd party generally agreeable method of accounting, preferably several different sources. I would expect the Federal government to uses this dispute to justify actions against the States morally.
We don’t need this yet, but it might be fruitful to start looking around now for such 3rd party organizations that might being willing to do math and accounting on the behalf of the various state governments in their political arguments for justifying their deductions, as well as their case against the feds for unfairly robbing their people.
In short: We will need to find a few “independent” accountants out there eventually… lol
Michael Boldin while we are not at all in dispute on this issue, as it is about who makes the laws not what the laws are.
I feel your classification of states that opt to go along with the Federal money for drug laws which the populations generally agree-with somewhat naive. Why would any state government take the risk and endure the cost of enforcing drug laws they agree with if they could possibly divert a large share of it else where?
While their exploitation of the situation is not necessarily helpful it is understandable and that doesn’t make them our enemy.
I am in agreement in that we will have to side with the left on some issues and the right on other issues, but not in our own State.
I believe our general goal can be achieved by creating the general disorder that exposes the unfairness of federal distribution of the general funds.
Why should California pay for Drug law enforcement which it nether wants nor has?
To the same degree why should Tennessee pay for gun law enforcement that it nether wants nor will hopefully have much longer?
This is the battle that has yet to seriously begin, but it is one in which we are headed to and hopefully preparing to fight and win. Winning being getting the Federal government out of theses areas all together.
It is certainly much more realistic to delay the cutting of the cost until the unfairness issue becomes apparent then to refuses money for an activity we would be doing otherwise with our own.
We would be getting ahead of ourselves and asking for too high a bar if we were to ask the people and their states NOT TO try and reclaim by any means necessary that money which they were forced to contribute in the first place.
We cannot expect a people or their state governments to ignore the economic equation, and not try and take as great a share of their federal tax contribution back as they can.
That is natural, and that is their right even if it is not within the legitimate rights of the federal government to take that money from them in the first place for theses end
Nullification cannot be so clear and absolute as to always take the greatest path of resistance.(Refusing all such illegal federal funds willfully given back to the state.) We simply cannot afford to wage this fight on all fronts all the time.
We instead must buy time until States can be driven to implement Federal Escrow accounts (risky and will take a great deal of time and unified efforts. Because the Feds will react strongly when we cut off their money supply), where they can directly take control of the money for domestic issues and thus keep their wealth from simply being redistributed to all the other States(IE: avoid forfeiting it all together).
I do not believe this was the message of alienating was what you conveyed so I do not think there is a dispute between us. I simply wanted to make this distinction clear.
Monorprise, thanks again for your perspective!
You’re probably right that Federal Escrow Accounts are going to be a necessity to push back nationalization of all kinds of issues – be they drug enforcement, gun enforcement, or virtually everything else this unconstitutional regime in DC forces upon everyone.
This might be the best way of looking at the whole process too:
I believe our general goal can be achieved by creating the general disorder that exposes the unfairness of federal distribution of the general funds.
It is far better that our states be divided upon these issues of liberty, then liberally forced to be united under them.
Lets not become overly pro-drugs here, lets remember the problem is not the drug laws but who is making them.
The Conservative anti-drug states should be at full liberty to make and enforce their own drug laws, and in the interest of customs and law enforcement, States should be permitted to forbid the importation of such illegal drugs into their State.
Non-adults must also be forbidden from crossing state lines without the permission of their parent or guardian. While neighboring States should respect such laws with regard to minors, in denying them such things if they cannot variety their State citizenship of a state that allows it or parental permission.
We must not forget that our goal is that everyone should win, and that anyone of our ideas of what constitutes just law and order should not be imposed upon all others.
Monorprise – I’m pro Constitution. That means, I cheer on every effort to resist unconstitutional federal laws. That puts me on the side of conservatives at times, and on the side of liberals at other times.
The bottom line on the “drug war” is that the federal government doesn’t have constitutional authority to say one way or the other on the legal status of this or any plant – or drug. Like you said, who’s making the laws is what’s most important.
So, I certainly agree with you that anti-drug states should have the full liberty to “make and enforce their own drug laws,” I don’t see a single state doing that. Those that keep the status quo – remain on the federal dole for funding AND enforcement of such drug laws.
I don’t see any state showing the courage to refuse federal funding or federal enforcement of marijuana laws – and charging their own residents for the enforcement of it instead.
That keeps me far in the camp of the legalizers – they’re the only ones doing something constitutional.
What good is pot if it’s illegal to light it up? They’ll have to rewrite tons of no-smoking laws to only prohibit tobacco. Go figure.
I believe the comments accurately generalize the real issue. Gun boat diplomacy IS the ‘American Way’. It’s only a matter of whom the vulnerable target of the ‘diplomacy’ IS at the time of the conversation.
If the above conjecture were false… would we be having this conversation? Aren’t the same battles that MLK fought still being fought today? Isn’t it only a matter of whom the villains are targeting?
How many imprisoned, beaten, tortured, tased, bloodied and bankrupted Americans does it take to qualify as not quite yet at the “free at last, free at last” finish line?
Hope I’m wrong.
I’m guessing that unless and until ‘The States’ use their own gunboat diplomacy to defend against the atrocities heretofore described, the more things change, the more they WILL stay the same.
Here’s to Second Order Change,
Constant A. Change
The Federal Gov can not by law even so much as discuss legalization, it is up to the states to change the law on the state level, and the Federal Gov will follow suit, the Federal Gov is forbidden by law to lead this movement, if we were to wait for them, innocent people will still be going to jail for the next 1000 years, its set up that way, intimidation is all the Fed Gov has
were do i go to put my signature for the cause of legalizeing marijuana ?denise
Full legalization at the state level means little, unless state troopers start arresting FBI and DEA agents.
so you’re saying that without using some kind of aggression of violence to “beat back” the bad guys, all efforts like this are useless? Was the civil disobedience by Ghandi and his followers something that meant “little”? How about MLK?
Resistance to immoral, unjust and unconstitutional laws doesn’t only come in the form of an armed standoff between federal and state officials.
I just made my first YouTube video on this subject! C’mon, LEGALIZE it already!!
I think the proper term, at least on the federal level, is to decriminalize. They have no constitutional authority to make laws determining legality of a plant – pro or con.