Feds Sentence Aaron Sandusky to 10 Years for Medical Marijuana

[poptab]

This might have been brought up before but...

http://youtu.be/N7PggJUIzCo

 

[IndyDave1776]

Doesn't it make you feel so much safer knowing that we are apparently out of real criminals this week? Hell, the way the Obama administration works so far as appointing criminals to cabinet positions or as 'czars' I am surprised they didn't offer him a position in the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

[K_W]

Pot is still illegal. I'm neutral on the issue, but we are a country of laws.

Don;t get me wrong, I feel for the guy, but in the eyes of Federal Law, he is no different than a guy growing pot in his basement.

 

[poptab]

Pot is still illegal. I'm neutral on the issue, but we are a country of laws.

I feel for the guy, but in the eyes of Federal Law, he is no different than a guy growing pot in his basement.

Unjust law is no law at all.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Pot is still illegal. I'm neutral on the issue, but we are a country of laws.

I feel for the guy, but in the eyes of Federal Law, he is no different than a guy growing pot in his basement.

While I am absolutely opposed to drug use and/or supply, my question is where in the white spaces between the lines in the constitution does one find any authority for the federal government to poke its nose into the issue?

 

[K_W]

While I am absolutely opposed to drug use and/or supply, my question is where in the white spaces between the lines in the constitution does one find any authority for the federal government to poke its nose into the issue?

I have no good answer for that.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Pot is still illegal. I'm neutral on the issue, but we are a country of laws.

Don;t get me wrong, I feel for the guy, but in the eyes of Federal Law, he is no different than a guy growing pot in his basement.

If the Supreme Court hadn't warped the Constitution it would be an unconstitutional federal law.

 

[rambone]

Pot is still illegal. I'm neutral on the issue, but we are a country of laws.

Very few federal laws are actually lawful.... which leads me to the opposite conclusion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have no good answer for that.

That is because there isn't one. Wickard v. Filburn claimed that even if Filburn's wheat never left his farm, it was still under federal jurisdiction, including quotas limiting the amount he could grow because even using it as feed for his own animals, it *may* prevent him from having to buy other wheat which *may* have been imported from another state, thereby affecting interstate commerce. This aberration of justice could not have happened other than on a court with 8 of the 9 justices FDR appointees. Yes, we are still suffering from letting the communist bast*rd pack the Supreme Court.

The bottom line is that the aforementioned unconstitutional power grab notwithstanding, the Constitution grants the federal government authority to regulate interstate commerce with the caveat that 'regulate' was defined as making it work in a smooth and effective way, as opposed to 'regulation' as redefined meaning to make limitless petty rules, hence my personal issue about not allowing the government to redefine language, hence nullifying the Constitution.

That said, this man's plants were never engaged in any form of interstate commerce, hence the federal government has no authority whatsoever to interfere. Intrastate commerce is reserved to the states and the people.