ok thank for the up date

??...............sorta left field...no?!

__________________
G e k M o t h e r...

You said:

And then I showed that the Supreme Court ruled that Federal Drug Laws superseded state laws, in a case pertaining specifically to marijuana.
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you said you know a lot about the Constitution and that the Article in the Constitution that I cited and that the Supreme Court based their decision on probably wasn't really ratified.

You said that an Article of the Constitution is an amendment which is wholly incorrect, Amendments to the Constitution are Amendments to the Constitution, the Articles were the original contents of the Constitution.

Then Kryztina posted the actual date of ratification with links and the day each state ratified the Constitution, you can even see all the amendments with the dates they were ratified.

The court case you link to in your last post is from 1931 and dealt the ability to pass Constitutional Amendments with state legislatures rather than Constitutional Conventions, and all it did was affirm that an amendment can be passed as long as 3/4 of state legislatures pass it. It has no bearing on the matter at hand, as I've shown in other posts in this thread the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that state laws legalizing marijuana are superseded by federal drug laws and that they can and will raid your ass.

I don't believe it's just and I don't believe it's the way things should be but this is the current situation in our country.


http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/27446prs20061116.html

The link above is to a recent ruling in favor of medical marijuana in California but take note that this is only a Superior Court in California, and that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they can and will prosecute people on drug charges even in states where it's legal. (See Below)

Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana

I say you backpedaled because your original arguments was that federal laws can't supersede state laws pertaining to marijuana, and then I offered proof that they did supersede them, then you said that it probably wasn't ratified and therefore isn't valid, then you were given proof that it was indeed ratified, then you went back to saying that states rights in this matter were above the federal governments rights even though I had already given you proof that the federal laws took precedent over state laws regarding marijuana.

How about you show us a case where marijuana grower was allowed to continue growing by the feds? If it is as you say then there shouldn't be any busts on medicinal growers in states where it's legal, and this is not the case.

Certainly not, no I didn't backpeddle, I was directing you to the 10th amendment the whole time.
And if you read the tenth amendment it says in plain English that the federal government can not encroach on the rights of the state.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

The Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism.

Meaning that it can not get involved in state matters. That means also unless the marijuana has crossed state lines, there has been no federal laws violated.
If you were to go and read the Gonzales v. Raich, What laws were the feds trying to use as a basis for their case?
It was Federal Commerce Clause. Raich was growing for herself. She wasn’t involved in sales, distribution or trafficking and her product sure as hell didn’t cross state lines. Thus she was not guilty of violating the Federal Commerce Clause.
I never said that the government has left growers alone. I am saying that the federal government violated the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. I am also saying that the Supreme Court ruled in error.
I did not step into this argument to play oneupsmentship, I got into this to show how the government is being selective on which laws it is willing to obey.
Funny though, it sounds as though you are cheering on the feds in this matter.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn

I apologize then, your posts seemed to indicate that should you find yourself prosecuted by the government you could adequately defend yourself by deferring to the 10th amendment.

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be the states (peoples) right to decide on the legality, but it's important to know the way it's being handled now as this is the precedent court cases on marijuana go by, and until the courts or the people change it this is how it will continue.

I'm not cheering the police, I'm decrying painting a rosy picture of our legal system for the uninformed to read and think we're immune to prosecution because my state says I can grow it.

Personally, I think if the DEA were made to report to the General Accounting Office (which they are not required to do so) the people would demand an end to that agency.
Theirs is a budget that is only rivaled by the Iraq War and has padded their books more than Halliburton.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn

u know its funny....in Canada here I was told by the head district for legal aid that this (and all) justice systems arnt 'real life', but thankfully there are enough loophole that one can usually find a way out....thx to dirty politicians covering their asses!

__________________
G e k M o t h e r...

I think one of the main problems with this is that the Government is trying to tell doctors what works and what has medical value, so we're forced to take medical advice from the government rather than people trained in medicine and the doctors that may have us as patients, removing a doctors ability to properly treat someone is forcing them to either break the law or their Hippocratic oath, and in most cases a doctor is far more willing to help a human being rather than follow a ridiculous law.

I agree.....alot of women (ppl I know) r encouraged to formula feed their young if they encounter the slightest problem nursing-nursing aint easy! but some support is nice...its like the doctors make a cut out of 'upselling'....
headache-take a pill,
tummy rumblies-take a pill
then when u really need meds ur system is so clogged the stuff u need cant work!
(just rambling....pissed @ my mom...lol, sorry if I hit any nerves )

__________________
G e k M o t h e r...

Growing your own herb and not transporting it across state lines would seem to be in compliance with the Tenth Amendment. But ... But ... what about the equipment, nutrients and all the other stuff required to grow the herb that HAS crossed those state lines? The courts would/will/have used this to negate the Tenth Amendment defense.

And by the way ... I haven't done my taxes for last year yet. I'm seriously considering writing off my growing expenses due to my medical status as a legal California medical grower. Any comments??

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.