[syntaxerrorsix]

Hell even the FBI home page admits that the agency was formed against the will of the people by a couple of progressives. No wonder so many people have been duped.

"1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism:" a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states."

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history

[Sharky7]

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Impressive. So far you've fared exactly as expected and landed right smack in the middle of nanny nanny boo boo much like your counterparts.

Commendable.. really.

/thread

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

The Constitution is the framework for our country and government.

frame·work /ˈfrāmˌwərk/
Noun

1. An essential supporting structure of a building, vehicle, or object.

2. A basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text: "the theoretical framework of political sociology".

I understand your argument...but I do not agree with it.
--------------------------

Now....Why do you believe so many other countries on Earth have laws against illegal drugs for their society?

No, it isn't Nancy Pelosi. You actually couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution is a legal document that, among a few other things, describes in great detail which powers the states have ceded to the federal government. It reads very clearly.

Under your logic, the bill of rights are a list of polite suggestions.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

Ask your President. He is the Constitutional scholar...He certainly knows the answers.

My President?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I'd shut my mouth on it forever if you can point to the section of the COTUS that grants the fed this power OR explain why alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment but marijuana prohibition didn't.

Still no takers on this, huh?

Never is.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

Impressive. So far you've fared exactly as expected and landed right smack in the middle of nanny nanny boo boo much like your counterparts.

Commendable.. really.

/thread

Sorry...You are so far off the end of the spectrum that nothing I would say would matter. I see what you believe in regards to the constitution - but I don't agree with you at all.

Some of your statements about basic street drugs and their effects on society are also way off. If you want to understand what a community of drug addicts are like, let me know. Come on a ride along.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Sorry...You are so far off the end of the spectrum that nothing I would say would matter. I see what you believe in regards to the constitution - but I don't agree with you at all.

The Constitution says what it says. There really isn't a "spectrum" until you folks invent one.

Some of your statements about basic street drugs and their effects on society are also way off. If you want to understand what a community of drug addicts are like, let me know. Come on a ride along.

Forcing users and dealers into the shadows is precisely what causes the rampant crime and violence associated with illicit drug use.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

No, it isn't Nancy Pelosi. You actually couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution is a legal document that, among a few other things, describes in great detail which powers the states have ceded to the federal government. It reads very clearly.

Under your logic, the bill of rights are a list of polite suggestions.

You think the constitution is written in great detail? So much so that 200 years later people are still arguing just that, details....

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

You think the constitution is written in great detail? So much so that 200 years later people are still arguing just that, details....

Which parts do you feel are in unclear?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds
I'd shut my mouth on it forever if you can point to the section of the COTUS that grants the fed this power OR explain why alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment but marijuana prohibition didn't.

Takers?

Anyone?

Bueller?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Forcing users and dealers into the shadows is precisely what causes the rampant crime and violence associated with illicit drug use.

In regards to some areas of drug conspiracy and smuggling.....but this could not be further from the truth on the statement you make.

Heroin is as easy to get in Chicago as a pack of gum from a store. The junkie going through withdrawal that is breaking into your house looking for items to pawn is doing so for money....not because his heroin is illegal by the government.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Which parts do you feel are in unclear?

You are on a gun forum. Take the second amendment. Think about the history of gun laws over the last 100 years and all the recent major cases.

[certifiedfunds]

If the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, what's the point in having one? Why not just be governed by a nation of laws enacted by the majority in power?

Why did those folks bother sweating it out in the Philadelphia state house, trying to get it just right? Fools they were.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

You are on a gun forum. Take the second amendment. Think about the history of gun laws over the last 100 years and all the recent major cases.

I'll be more specific then: What portion of the second amendment do you feel is unclear?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I'll be more specific then: What portion of the second amendment do you feel is unclear?

This isn't about what I feel is unclear. This is about your above statement that the constitution is written in great detail and not a framework for our country and government. 200 years later we are still arguing out facts.

50 years ago today many of the states did not have concealed carry laws.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

This isn't about what I feel is unclear. This is about your above statement that the constitution is written in great detail and not a framework for our country and government. 200 years later we are still arguing out facts.

50 years ago today many of the states did not have concealed carry laws.

It's a simple question. What in the bill of rights do you feel is unclear?

[BicycleDay43]

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

The people who scream the loudest for decriminalization are the furthest from having to deal with it.

Those on here who scream about the legalization of drugs and how it is unconstitutional have never had to tell parents that their 17 YO daughter overdosed and was found dead in a Walmart bathroom.



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Officer, would you mind telling us exactly how many times you've had to inform someone, that a loved one overdosed solely on marijuana?

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by BicycleDay43

Officer, would you mind telling us exactly how many times you've had to inform someone, that a loved one overdosed solely on marijuana?

Really? We've been discussing hard drugs for 9 pages now.

She OD'd on heroin mixed with a little bit of rat poison.

I haven't but a close friend informed the parents of a kid who died in a crash.

Only thing in his system was MJ.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

If the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, what's the point in having one? Why not just be governed by a nation of laws enacted by the majority in power?

Because at least the supreme court has to decide what the constitution means and, no matter what your constitution says, somebody has to do that.

The majority? They elected Obama and can barely sign their names on their welfare checks. I'd rather go with the courts having too much power than "the people." We talk a lot about "the people" as if they are some wise and noble group. Maybe we should stop and think about that.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Which parts do you feel are in unclear?

All of the parts. That is the nature of constitutions and laws. Cases are written in detail to account for things that have already happened. Laws are written generally, to try to account for future possibilities. The higher the levle, the more general it is - the constitution being the highest level of all and being written appropriately for that level. In fact, nobody has managed to write one on par since, for the very reasons argued about here - because they try and make it more clear and specific, which leads to unforseen future problems. We only have forseeable future whiners who don't get what they want.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Bren

Because at least the supreme court has to decide what the constitution means and, no matter what your constitution says, somebody has to do that.

The majority? They elected Obama and can barely sign thei names on thei welfare checks. I'd rather go with the courts having too much power than "the people." We talk a lot about "the people" as if they are some wise and noble group. Maybe we should stop and think about that.

And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

No.

The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

No.

The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.

Well,

A. you are wrong - the constitution is federal law and the interpretation of federal law is done by the judiciary.

B. If not the courts, who do you suggest should do it instead?

C. If you think the constitution clearly lays out the powers of the government, so it needs no interpretation, then you don't know enough about it to even begin this discussion. The state and federal law affecting my state, for example, would fill a library (and does fill several libraries) yet even that doesn't lay it out so clearly that courts aren't required to answer new questions about what it means, every single day.

[syntaxerrorsix]

By our inaction we have allowed the federal government to reach so far past it's constitutional authority that we have reached the point of no return. It's powers are listed and limited. That list is widely available and has been posted in this thread. If that power isn't there guess what folks, it doesn't exist. Your education has let you down if the wording of the 10A is beyond your reading comprehension.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Bren

Well,

A. you are wrong - the constitution is federal law and the interpretation of federal law is done by the judiciary.

B. If not the courts, who do you suggest should do it instead?

C. If you think the constitution clearly lays out the powers of the government, so it needs no interpretation, then you don't know enough about it to even begin this discussion.

A. No I'm not. The SCOTUS has a limited amount of cases to hear. Federal drug laws aren't under it's purview because federal drug laws aren't suppose to exist.

B. Once again, the cases they should be hearing won't be in regards to the BOR. Those laws were left tot he States because the BOR is a restriction on the federal government. NO branches of the federal courts get to legislate those.

C. The powers given to the federal government are quite clear nothing else applies. Would you like me to post that list again?