Ryan: Don't interfere with legalized medical pot

[anatta]

the power to prohibit possession is based upon the commerce clause, but anyone with any ounce of intellectual honesty knows that someone growing a small amount of marijuana in their backyard, for their own use, not to sell to anyone, is not engaging in commerce. Yet most people are quite comfortable with the bullshit legalese explanation that the supremes have given for a number of things that CLEARLY violate the boundaries of government authority according to the constitution.

ou refer to Gonzalex v Raich, - go back to Wikard v Filburn, where home grown wheat that would never reach the market was prohibited by SCOTUS.

I agree with you, the Commeer Clause allows unlimited reach into state law. Finally stopped with Mandate (HCare) but that was a lucky move that Robets said it was a tax.

You might want to check out Federalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States -worth reading through to see the historicals expansive nature of the Commerce Clause.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yep, you sound just like my liberal hippie constitutional law grad friend. He claims you can say the magic words "corpus delicti" to any judge, and have your case dismissed immediately, and they will usher you out of the courtroom before anyone notices what you've said. I've never tested his theory.

Marijuana is classified as a narcotic, and if you are growing it, you are 'producing' a narcotic. If you have more than a quarter-ounce (in AL) on your person, in a public place, it is considered "intent to distribute" and I think that is under the commerce clause. Whether "corpus delicti" works on this, I have no idea, but I am fairly certain plugging cops who you think don't have the right to arrest you, is not going to work out well for you at the end of the day.

I don't know or care what corpus delicti means, but I can tell you that legislation that defines possession of a certain amount of anything is a declaration of 'intent to distribute' is not only laughable, but outright despotic. I get that there are people too ignorant of the constitution and it's history, therefore they feel that the only way to understand what it says is to have it interpreted to them by black robed tyrants. It's just sad that you're one of them and that you feel unable to read it for yourself.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

ou refer to Gonzalex v Raich, - go back to Wikard v Filburn, where home grown wheat that would never reach the market was prohibited by SCOTUS.

I agree with you, the Commeer Clause allows unlimited reach into state law. Finally stopped with Mandate (HCare) but that was a lucky move that Robets said it was a tax.

You might want to check out Federalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States -worth reading through to see the historicals expansive nature of the Commerce Clause.

i'm well aware of the numerous cases around the commerce clause since wickard. They've been used with a tyrannical glee by the feds and courts to give themselves the power to order you to grow yellow daisies in your front yard, if they were so inclined. pretty damned sure that the founders didn't intend for them to have that power.

 

[anatta]

i'm well aware of the numerous cases around the commerce clause since wickard. They've been used with a tyrannical glee by the feds and courts to give themselves the power to order you to grow yellow daisies in your front yard, if they were so inclined. pretty damned sure that the founders didn't intend for them to have that power.

agree. It's just oh so ez to relinquish state ( or to the ppl"powers" to the Fed's.

The 10th has little meaning, sounds like we a re prety sympatico on this. I just posted that page, it's fairly quick read of the history of federalism, and shows all the small steps to utter blurring of "co-sovereignity" to the ppint of meaninglessness.

The 10th might not as well exist. Even if there is co-sovereignity, the monies are so intertwined, the Fed's rule darn near anything.
What drives me nuts is those whom say "we have a bigger country now -so we need a bigger Fed'l role" - it's nothing but rhetoric to squash the unemerated power that are supposed to "reserved to the states and the ppl".

here's an interesting page - i didn'tknow you were beyong the basics (-sorry) -this is a bit more advanced -i just bookmarked it. looks good

 

[SmarterthanYou]

agree. It's just oh so ez to relinquish state ( or to the ppl"powers" to the Fed's.

The 10th has little meaning, sounds like we a re prety sympatico on this. I just posted that page, it's fairly quick read of the history of federalism, and shows all the small steps to utter blurring of "co-sovereignity" to the ppint of meaninglessness.

The 10th might not as well exist. Even if there is co-sovereignity, the monies are so intertwined, the Fed's rule darn near anything.
What drives me nuts is those whom say "we have a bigger country now -so we need a bigger Fed'l role" - it's nothing but rhetoric to squash the unemerated power that are supposed to "reserved to the states and the ppl".

here's an interesting page - i didn'tknow you were beyong the basics (-sorry) -this is a bit more advanced -i just bookmarked it. looks good

agreed.

 

[Althea]

It reduces interocular pressue as well as RX. drugs, without side effects. But Rx. drugs are longer lasting. Who knows the ultimate potential, sorry my words are sloppy on that lasts post, i'm beat down tired -wanted to try to reply tonight ,so

As I stated...weed doesn't cure glaucoma. It relieves the pain.

Go after porly run clinics, give the states time to set there standadrs -this just worked it way thru the CA Supreme Court.

Given that we've had this discussion, I'll give you this link. It shows the business side of weed. Notice that most of the dispensaries are less than a year old?

I can't make the point enough times to make you understand...although at some level I think you agree:

It was the explosion in supposed medical marijuana demand that caused this mess.

I have no qualms with medical marijuana. You keep referring to the Ogden memo as if it were some legally binding article. It isn't. It's a guideline.

Given the sudden change in the mm landscape,( due to Obama's perceived position), something had to be done.

I've already shown you that local govts didn't want the huge influx of mm outfits. They were getting inundated with permit requests.

They chose to let the fed regulation be the law of the land....as is their right.


Given that Obama has never been interested in anything but his re-election, what do you suppose we'd be talking about right now if there was pot on every street corner being consumed 'legally'?

"That Obama has created a weed problem".

Read this when you get a chance.

- The U.S. medical marijuana market totals roughly $1.7 billion and could grow fivefold to hit $8.9 billion by 2016.

- California and Colorado account for 92 percent of the entire wholesale and retail sales pie, making them the hubs of the industry. The former has the largest market – valued at $1.3 billion – while the latter has the fastest-growing and most “business-friendly” medical marijuana market.

- The potential customer base is enormous: 24.8 million people can qualify for medical marijuana cards in states with laws making it legal.

- Nearly 35 percent of dispensaries and wholesale medical marijuana companies cite regulatory issues as their biggest concern, followed by obtaining financing.





- Two-thirds of medical marijuana businesses have been operating for less than a year.

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/2011/05...portunities-for-dispensaries-weed-businesses/


We can safely say that the mm industry exploded by 2/3 after Obama took office.


Notice the crackdowns have been in the largest markets? Those that are expanding geometrically.

I refuse to believe that all of the patients need medical weed.

Your idea was a good one....crack down on the bogus doctors/dispensaries.

It's much quicker to just wipe out the industry, and let them apply again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't know or care what corpus delicti means, but I can tell you that legislation that defines possession of a certain amount of anything is a declaration of 'intent to distribute' is not only laughable, but outright despotic. I get that there are people too ignorant of the constitution and it's history, therefore they feel that the only way to understand what it says is to have it interpreted to them by black robed tyrants. It's just sad that you're one of them and that you feel unable to read it for yourself.

Corpus delicti means "body of crime" and his explanation was; Cops have to prove 1.) A crime was committed, and 2.) You intended to commit it. He could explain it a whole lot better than me, but it just reminded me of what you are arguing, so I figured you understood... me, I don't even understand Latin.

Now, legislation, that I do understand. Congress passes legislation, and the SCOTUS can rule the legislation is unconstitutional, but if they don't, it's the law of the land. In either case, it doesn't mean the legislation is indeed, within the spirit of the constitution, it may not be, even when the SCOTUS rules it is! But this is not an argument for abandoning our system or advocating anarchy. It's a really good argument for electing Congressional members on the basis of how well they understand the constitution, and electing presidents who don't appoint air-head liberals to the Supreme Court, like Kagan and Sotomayor... or for that matter, presidents who appoint political moderate panderers, like John Roberts.

The "black robed tyrants" are there for a reason, they do serve a valuable purpose in our system. The problem is, the people we've put in those robes for life, with absolutely no accountability to the voting public. These people should be above reproach in their upholding of the principles of the constitution, without regard for politics. That's gotten to be, not the case at all, as we have defined the justices as "conservative" or "liberal" and their rulings generally reflect their political ideology. We should be able to look at a SCOTUS justice, and not be able to tell if he/she is "liberal" or "conservative", but rather, how have they ruled on the spirit and principles of the constitution. These people should be "Jimmy Stewart" types, who we can trust implicitly to make the right choice, regardless of their personal sentiments. We've completely abandoned that, we don't hold presidents accountable for who they put on the courts. In fact, we sit back and demand they put someone there who is "liberal" or "conservative" like the ideology the president represents, and not fair-minded individuals who are going to go by the letter of the constitution. This isn't the system's fault, it's OUR fault. We've dropped the ball, and allowed this to happen, and now we have a court full of extremists from left and right, instead of impartial judges.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Corpus delicti means "body of crime" and his explanation was; Cops have to prove 1.) A crime was committed, and 2.) You intended to commit it. He could explain it a whole lot better than me, but it just reminded me of what you are arguing, so I figured you understood... me, I don't even understand Latin.

your friend probably hasn't figured out yet that corpus delicti can only be used if a cop commits a crime with no intent to commit the crime, because ignorance of the law IS an excuse for those with badges.

Now, legislation, that I do understand. Congress passes legislation, and the SCOTUS can rule the legislation is unconstitutional, but if they don't, it's the law of the land. In either case, it doesn't mean the legislation is indeed, within the spirit of the constitution, it may not be, even when the SCOTUS rules it is! But this is not an argument for abandoning our system or advocating anarchy. It's a really good argument for electing Congressional members on the basis of how well they understand the constitution, and electing presidents who don't appoint air-head liberals to the Supreme Court, like Kagan and Sotomayor... or for that matter, presidents who appoint political moderate panderers, like John Roberts.

we've been waiting decades for something like that to happen, but it never does. It's why I promote jury nullification.

The "black robed tyrants" are there for a reason, they do serve a valuable purpose in our system. The problem is, the people we've put in those robes for life, with absolutely no accountability to the voting public. These people should be above reproach in their upholding of the principles of the constitution, without regard for politics. That's gotten to be, not the case at all, as we have defined the justices as "conservative" or "liberal" and their rulings generally reflect their political ideology. We should be able to look at a SCOTUS justice, and not be able to tell if he/she is "liberal" or "conservative", but rather, how have they ruled on the spirit and principles of the constitution. These people should be "Jimmy Stewart" types, who we can trust implicitly to make the right choice, regardless of their personal sentiments. We've completely abandoned that, we don't hold presidents accountable for who they put on the courts. In fact, we sit back and demand they put someone there who is "liberal" or "conservative" like the ideology the president represents, and not fair-minded individuals who are going to go by the letter of the constitution. This isn't the system's fault, it's OUR fault. We've dropped the ball, and allowed this to happen, and now we have a court full of extremists from left and right, instead of impartial judges.

those black robed tyrants USED to serve a purpose, but your wonderfully written explanation is exactly why there are no longer useful. great paragraph. thanks.

 

[anatta]

As I stated...weed doesn't cure glaucoma. It relieves the pain.
Given that we've had this discussion, I'll give you this link. It shows the business side of weed. Notice that most of the dispensaries are less than a year old?

I can't make the point enough times to make you understand...although at some level I think you agree:

It was the explosion in supposed medical marijuana demand that caused this mess.

I have no qualms with medical marijuana. You keep referring to the Ogden memo as if it were some legally binding article. It isn't. It's a guideline.

Given the sudden change in the mm landscape,( due to Obama's perceived position), something had to be done.

I've already shown you that local govts didn't want the huge influx of mm outfits. They were getting inundated with permit requests.

They chose to let the fed regulation be the law of the land....as is their right.


Given that Obama has never been interested in anything but his re-election, what do you suppose we'd be talking about right now if there was pot on every street corner being consumed 'legally'?

"That Obama has created a weed problem".

Read this when you get a chance.



http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/2011/05...portunities-for-dispensaries-weed-businesses/


We can safely say that the mm industry exploded by 2/3 after Obama took office.


Notice the crackdowns have been in the largest markets? Those that are expanding geometrically.

I refuse to believe that all of the patients need medical weed.

Your idea was a good one....crack down on the bogus doctors/dispensaries.

It's much quicker to just wipe out the industry, and let them apply again.

Being as MM marijuana won't be around too much longer -both the AMA and the DEA dcry it as "it can't be medicine since it's smoked" we're looking at a Big Phama take over -sativex is just the first step.

I don't give a rat's as about Obama, if he cracked down on it because of electioneering:

Given that Obama has never been interested in anything but his re-election, what do you suppose we'd be talking about right now if there was pot on every street corner being consumed 'legally'?

"That Obama has created a weed problem

fuck him and his drones -it's kis karma,but ppl are not getting their meds -their lives

I agree with much you say, i'm exausted from this endless convo -so answer me this:

Why the fishing expedition from the USDA's?? Harborside (OP) was by all account well run. As was HopeCare, and more in the "weed wars" thread?

Yet the USDA's keep threating RICO, and the IRS won't let MM dispensarys write off their busines costs.

Tax court burns entire U.S. medical marijuana industry
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/06/tax-court-burns-entire-u-s-medical-marijuana-industry/

Medical marijuana dispensaries that have taken federal tax deductions are about to be gut-checked by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), thanks to a recent ruling by the U.S. Tax Court in Washington, D.C.

In Olive v. Commissioner (PDF), judges unanimously found that the owner of the Vapor Room Herbal Center, one of San Francisco’s largest and most profitable dispensaries, was not allowed to take business deductions because the business was trafficking in a controlled substance.

The tactic has been increasingly favored by the IRS since 2008, when the U.S. tax agency began conducting audits of major California dispensaries.
One of the first businesses targeted by the IRS was the Martin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, which was forced to shut its doors after the IRS cited § 280E of the federal tax code, which prohibits deductions on sales of controlled substances, and demanded millions of dollars in back taxes.


“Every dispensary in the nation, past, present and future is dead if this is upheld,” the Lynette Shaw, owner of the Martin Alliance dispensary, told The Martin Independent Journal.

The Harborside Health Center in Oakland and the Oaksterdam medical marijuana “university” were also targeted using similar IRS claims.
While federal drug enforcement agents raided Oaksterdam and forced its founder to step down, the Harborside clinic remains open today even as it faces a massive tax bill and appears to be losing a battle with prosecutors who are attempting to seize their buildings for violating local zoning guidelines.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I'll grant you the diversion could be problematic -where we differ is on PATIENT ACCESS - that's my concern, not Obama, not the IRS, not the UDSAs, not the Ogen/Cole memo.
Whatever the reasoning -whatever the diversion, the Obama Adm, is set about to KILL the MM industry. Obama is a corporatist poShit warmonger pig.
Really all I think of him.

PS. seee the shit in Libya today? Wonder why that happened -oh- maybe yet another Obama war.?

None of this is personal John. I value your ideas ,and well written posts, I havejust had enough of Obama, his "reasons" , his policies, etc.
Of course he's still the lessor of 2 evils - great he's better then Romney, -a pro Vietnam war draft doger 1%'r , whom is more warlike.
That's about all I can say 'pro-Obama'.

I get the ideas you show, i hope you see mine -i'm on the side of patient access, even if there are too many dispensary, CA just ruled on them - given time, the states would have worked it out -other states are more restrictive. They are taking diversion into account.

But that all going to go down in flames, the DEA/USDA/IRS/Obama are making it impossible to operate a dispensary.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

your friend probably hasn't figured out yet that corpus delicti can only be used if a cop commits a crime with no intent to commit the crime, because ignorance of the law IS an excuse for those with badges.

Well, cops are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are allowed to sometimes violate laws in the apprehension of criminals, like speeding to catch someone speeding, or firing their gun in a public place to stop someone with a gun. This wasn't what my friend was talking about. He claimed that 99% of the stuff they arrest you for, they can't prosecute you for because of 'corpus delicti', and all you have to do, is know that when you get in front of a judge. The lawyers won't tell you this because then you wouldn't ever need a lawyer. Like I said, I have no idea whether his theory works, I've never tested it.

we've been waiting decades for something like that to happen, but it never does. It's why I promote jury nullification.

But that isn't going to happen in our reality. I know that it can happen in your fantasy world, just like we could legalize dope and have no societal ramifications whatsoever from it. But reality has to be faced by the rest of us, we can't all live in a fantasy like you. We have a system that works fairly well when we have the right people in place, but it's like if you had a football program running the best offensive scheme out there, and you've got the head cheerleader playing QB, you're not going to win many games, and it's not because you aren't running the right system.

those black robed tyrants USED to serve a purpose, but your wonderfully written explanation is exactly why there are no longer useful. great paragraph. thanks.

But the system is the same, it still works when we have the right people in the right positions. We don't need to alter our system, we need the right people as justices on the court, and the right politicians to pass proper legislation.

 

[Althea]

Being as MM marijuana won't be around too much longer -both the AMA and the DEA dcry it as "it can't be medicine since it's smoked" we're looking at a Big Phama take over -sativex is just the first step.

Changing this takes a long time. I honestly think that the majority of pot smokers like the status quo.

The growers in Cal. voted against prop 19. I guess everyone's a money hungry whore.

If there is no uprising, then there will be no change. As long as there is plenty of pot available, you won't see any uprising in the near future.

You're prob. right about the classification. First step is to reclassify it.

And perhaps the industry needs to focus more on the tinctures, than the smokeable products. As such, they may be able to steer away from the 'controlled substance' issues.

If people can get the benefits of mm, without getting high, that would be a great advance in the cause.

 

[anatta]

Changing this takes a long time. I honestly think that the majority of pot smokers like the status quo.

The growers in Cal. voted against prop 19. I guess everyone's a money hungry whore.

If there is no uprising, then there will be no change. As long as there is plenty of pot available, you won't see any uprising in the near future.

You're prob. right about the classification. First step is to reclassify it.

And perhaps the industry needs to focus more on the tinctures, than the smokeable products. As such, they may be able to steer away from the 'controlled substance' issues.

If people can get the benefits of mm, without getting high, that would be a great advance in the cause.

younger smoker like the stus quo, older ( whom prolly need it more ageing= more health probs) like a dispensary.
A good dispensary can work with the patient -got a second? google Harborside -see how they operate .

You won't see any "uprising" because the politicns are cowards, only Greens and Gary Johnson favor "change"

The tinctures will still be a Schedule 1(if they use the "whole plant"). What I'm wondering about is Sativex - i THINK (ASS U ME) since it it is Phama, it will somehow be excepted from Schedule 1.

The doors are wide o[en for big Pharma, once it hits the market. Too bad -higher prices for an inferior product.

Maybe Obamacare would cover it as a medicine?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If people can get the benefits of mm, without getting high, that would be a great advance in the cause.

Dang, where's the fun in that???

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Dang, where's the fun in that???

LOOOOOOOOL

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, cops are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are allowed to sometimes violate laws in the apprehension of criminals, like speeding to catch someone speeding, or firing their gun in a public place to stop someone with a gun. This wasn't what my friend was talking about. He claimed that 99% of the stuff they arrest you for, they can't prosecute you for because of 'corpus delicti', and all you have to do, is know that when you get in front of a judge. The lawyers won't tell you this because then you wouldn't ever need a lawyer. Like I said, I have no idea whether his theory works, I've never tested it.

cops are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and i'm not even considering the pursuit exemptions and such. If your friend ever succeeds in using that as a defense, see that he publishes it far and wide. I will not hold my breath waiting.

But that isn't going to happen in our reality. I know that it can happen in your fantasy world, just like we could legalize dope and have no societal ramifications whatsoever from it. But reality has to be faced by the rest of us, we can't all live in a fantasy like you. We have a system that works fairly well when we have the right people in place, but it's like if you had a football program running the best offensive scheme out there, and you've got the head cheerleader playing QB, you're not going to win many games, and it's not because you aren't running the right system.

But the system is the same, it still works when we have the right people in the right positions. We don't need to alter our system, we need the right people as justices on the court, and the right politicians to pass proper legislation.

your fantasy world sounds sorta like mine. the only difference seems to be that I keep power in the hands of the people, while you prefer to keep it to an elected few. wonder who the founders would side with?

 

[Althea]

Dang, where's the fun in that???

If it's fun you're looking for, you can get the same quality weed at a much better price on the streets.

 

[anatta]

If it's fun you're looking for, you can get the same quality weed at a much better price on the streets.

I actually prefer Indica now, the high THC content just blows my head off, since I am not a chronic user.
The CBD:THC ratio in Indica,allows my mind to quiet, as I fold up shop outside ( get the cat in. trash out. water any plants since we're now in the dry season), and come in calm.

LOL we used to call it "creeper weed", we were right, we just didn't know WHY it didn't blow the top of your head off

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

cops are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and i'm not even considering the pursuit exemptions and such. If your friend ever succeeds in using that as a defense, see that he publishes it far and wide. I will not hold my breath waiting.

I'm sorry, there is not a different set of laws for cops. Some cops might be better at getting away with breaking laws, and some cops might turn a blind eye to other cops breaking laws, but the same laws are written for everyone. As for my friend, I already said, I don't know that he knows what the fuck he's talking about, just like you. He seems to believe this, and more power to him, I hope that theory works for him, but I have my doubts. Just as I doubt you can start plugging cops when they come to arrest you, as you seem to believe you can. I also won't hold my breath waiting to see what happens when you try that plan.

your fantasy world sounds sorta like mine. the only difference seems to be that I keep power in the hands of the people, while you prefer to keep it to an elected few. wonder who the founders would side with?

No, I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in reality. Yes, we elect a few to represent the many, it's called REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, and it has worked out pretty well, for the most part, for over 200 years. In fact, there is probably not another system ever developed by man, which works out better, which is why we're so fucking fond of it. You parading around promoting anarchy with typical airhead cynical rants, is NOT a better idea, and it won't ever be a better idea.

The Founders were people just like us, who had huge arguments and disagreements over what kind of government was best and how best to implement it. It took them 12-13 years to iron out the Constitution, and another several years to work out a Bill of Rights. This didn't all just come about overnight because they all had a universal epiphany. The clouds didn't open to a chorus of angels and golden light shone on a constitutional document for all to behold. There were indeed, great debates and deliberations over what was best and how to form our government. Today, people like to imagine the Founding Fathers all being of one mind in agreement, but that simply wasn't the case. Even after the Constitution was ratified, there were still people unhappy with it, determined to change it, not satisfied that we had perfected it. The Bill of Rights being the very first indication of this. Over the years, we've used the process and the system to change our Constitution... and THAT is my point... WE HAVE A SYSTEM! IT WORKS!

We can't just abandon the system and advocate anarchy. We're simply not going to do that, no matter how much you rant and rave and wish that we could. If there is something you dislike about our system, you can seek like minded individuals, and follow the process to change it. We have that freedom, it's built in to the system itself, and that is one of the things that makes it such a great system.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm sorry, there is not a different set of laws for cops. Some cops might be better at getting away with breaking laws, and some cops might turn a blind eye to other cops breaking laws, but the same laws are written for everyone. As for my friend, I already said, I don't know that he knows what the fuck he's talking about, just like you. He seems to believe this, and more power to him, I hope that theory works for him, but I have my doubts. Just as I doubt you can start plugging cops when they come to arrest you, as you seem to believe you can. I also won't hold my breath waiting to see what happens when you try that plan.

I gotta ask, do you ignore all my posts about the level of injustice comparing cops and civilians? and your doubt about 'plugging' cops, is it that you think it's illegal, or that I'm just that incompetent to do so?

No, I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in reality. Yes, we elect a few to represent the many, it's called REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, and it has worked out pretty well, for the most part, for over 200 years. In fact, there is probably not another system ever developed by man, which works out better, which is why we're so fucking fond of it. You parading around promoting anarchy with typical airhead cynical rants, is NOT a better idea, and it won't ever be a better idea.

If you think that the last 100 years has worked out pretty well for us, you're delusional. and I'm failing to see how promoting the rights of the people as envisioned by the founders can be considered anarchy, maybe you could explain that.

The Founders were people just like us, who had huge arguments and disagreements over what kind of government was best and how best to implement it. It took them 12-13 years to iron out the Constitution, and another several years to work out a Bill of Rights. This didn't all just come about overnight because they all had a universal epiphany. The clouds didn't open to a chorus of angels and golden light shone on a constitutional document for all to behold. There were indeed, great debates and deliberations over what was best and how to form our government. Today, people like to imagine the Founding Fathers all being of one mind in agreement, but that simply wasn't the case. Even after the Constitution was ratified, there were still people unhappy with it, determined to change it, not satisfied that we had perfected it. The Bill of Rights being the very first indication of this. Over the years, we've used the process and the system to change our Constitution... and THAT is my point... WE HAVE A SYSTEM! IT WORKS!

We can't just abandon the system and advocate anarchy. We're simply not going to do that, no matter how much you rant and rave and wish that we could. If there is something you dislike about our system, you can seek like minded individuals, and follow the process to change it. We have that freedom, it's built in to the system itself, and that is one of the things that makes it such a great system.

i've not once advocated abandoning our 'system', but you seem to think that re-interpretation of parts of the constitution is what the framers intended, when nothing could be further from the truth. 13 years to iron out the constitution would seem to indicate that they spent a hell of a lot of time to make sure they had the division and assignation of powers exactly the way they intended.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I gotta ask, do you ignore all my posts about the level of injustice comparing cops and civilians? and your doubt about 'plugging' cops, is it that you think it's illegal, or that I'm just that incompetent to do so?

Yep, I pretty much ignore extremist 'world is ending' rants by lunatics. My point about plugging cops is, I am betting that strategy won't turn out well for you at the end of the day. You're free to give it a shot (pardon the pun), but as I said, whether you feel justified or not, I predict your day won't end well.

If you think that the last 100 years has worked out pretty well for us, you're delusional. and I'm failing to see how promoting the rights of the people as envisioned by the founders can be considered anarchy, maybe you could explain that.

No, I think the last 200 years have turned out pretty well. Again, you aren't promoting what you claim to be. You are promoting what you believe is what was envisioned by the founding fathers, without considering the founding fathers were all individuals who had different opinions. You've developed an ignorant mindset that they envisioned this one thing and were all in agreement, and that isn't the case. They had a variety of opinions on where power should rest and how much of it to whom, etc. What they settled on was ratified into a Constitution, but they would have been the first to tell you it wasn't perfect... in fact, that's precisely what they did when they formed the Bill of Rights. We've gone on to amend the Constitution 17 more times over the years, and will probably do so again at some point. The Founding Fathers gave us this option, it's built in to the system.

i've not once advocated abandoning our 'system', but you seem to think that re-interpretation of parts of the constitution is what the framers intended, when nothing could be further from the truth. 13 years to iron out the constitution would seem to indicate that they spent a hell of a lot of time to make sure they had the division and assignation of powers exactly the way they intended.

That's exactly what you are advocating. And yes, that's exactly what the framers intended, for us to be able to "re-interpret" the constitution through the process of amendment, that's how black people gained freedom, and women gained the right to vote. For you to claim that the Constitution has this one altruistic meaning that is supposed to stand forever is ignorant of how they set the system up to begin with. Yes, they spend a hell of a lot of time making sure they had the division and assignation of powers exactly the way they intended for the times they lived in, and they also established the system by which we could change that in the future, if we so desired. If you don't like something about the system, CHANGE IT! Use the process they've laid out, and amend the Constitution, don't sit here bellyaching that it's an injustice and we need to start shooting police! That is ANARCHY, and we certainly wouldn't be better off in a state of anarchy.