What is also strange is that CO law enforcement budgets are going up, not down. And prison population is expected to increase next yr. I ain't no rocket scientist but that don't add up in my mind. I am starting to suspect they are just feeding an evil system that profits from prisoners...the prison industrial complex
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Neighboring states challenge Colorado pot laws in top U.S. court
- Thread starter RetroGrow
- Start date
Where are you getting your stats? Curious, and on what crimes?
at least there's no border states to sue Alaska.
Article III, section 2, of the Constitution distributes the federal judicial power between the Supreme Court’s appellate and original jurisdiction, providing that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in “all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,” and in cases to which a state is a party. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress made the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction exclusive in suits between two or more states,
The Supreme Court is the ONLY court for a case between two or more states..... And the states always have standing to sue each other over any petty crap. However they don't often sue each other...
Ya got that right!! GROW ON, Alaska!!! ;o)
The supposed legalization of recreational use of Cannabis by Coloradans does not, in any way shape ir form, violate the rights of others in other States. However, Fed & State laws prohibiting the use of Cannabis within their respective borders does violate an individuals personal Rights.
I'm pretty positive that the bringers of the suit don't have one single leg to stand on.
The US Supreme Court said, in the case of Marbury v Madison that Any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
The Tenth Amendment states explicitly:
"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 Ninth Amendment says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
I don't see how States get to tell their constituents what they can and cannot do.
It's quite obvious, at least to me, that the people retain all of the Rights while governing representatives of the people are limited in their activities.
I'm pretty positive that the bringers of the suit don't have one single leg to stand on.
The US Supreme Court said, in the case of Marbury v Madison that Any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
The Tenth Amendment states explicitly:
"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 Ninth Amendment says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
I don't see how States get to tell their constituents what they can and cannot do.
It's quite obvious, at least to me, that the people retain all of the Rights while governing representatives of the people are limited in their activities.
WaittillIdie
Member
dc
Last edited:
Mr. Passion,
CA fruit check points have been around for over three decades. The checkpoints have not stopped travel between the states.....
Having legal stores is important for most people. We can grow our own, but most part time stoners don't have the time or space for a garden. Lots of medical patients can't grow it either. They'd have to find it on the black market and commit a crime to get it. Just like the good old days.
Weed will be legal everywhere in the US at some point. This would be a setback if the supreme court takes the case and rules that states can't legalize it.
eatUR<3out
Member
Seriously, the state with the worst domestic terrorist attack against the federal government. They absolutely HATE the feds... until, you know, they don't. They have politicians that campaign against the feds.. and win. But yet, omg uncle Sam needs to stop those evil drug smokers. Pot is recreationaly legal in Co, it is not their problem to stop trafficking out of state, its the opposing states responsibility to keep that reefer madness out...
No offence to any right minded OK. citizen.
T
TheFarm
from the glass half full, maybe it starts a disintegration of federal control of states drug laws with a favorable opinion in the case
Mr. Passion,
CA fruit check points have been around for over three decades. The checkpoints have not stopped travel between the states.....
True dat!!! AZ, too...they just don't want a pest invasion in their crops. Don't blame them. Always sailed through check points in AZ, CA....nary a problem (with reek in the vehicle....ya know what I mean??)....so don't understand previous post on checkpoints. already been done in Cali with the fruit/vegi checks
Oh well.....I guess I need to stand up (sailing over my head) or more coffee.
Last edited:
Yeah, appears that way.... can swing either way....hoping pendulum eeks towards the Left knowing the dismal DON'T DO DRUGS campaign failed....damn hippes anyway!!! ;o)
Yep, grew up on tail end, in my teens in '69...so it's in my (501's) jeans!!
T
TheFarm
Oklahoma had an initiative to make exporting cannabis legal for the state (look it up), now this is pressure for letting Oklahoma sell to Colorado while it is still (for now) illegal to consume in Oklahoma, just a crazy theory
T
TheFarm
The Indian Reservations will grow it and the money will flow back into Oklahoma instead of money moving out to Colorado.
Well, now we know Arid is holdin down all the red stitch jeans.
Article III, section 2, of the Constitution distributes the federal judicial power between the Supreme Court’s appellate and original jurisdiction, providing that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in “all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,” and in cases to which a state is a party. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress made the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction exclusive in suits between two or more states,
The Supreme Court is the ONLY court for a case between two or more states..... And the states always have standing to sue each other over any petty crap. However they don't often sue each other...
thank you for that info, puts things into context a little better
i half remember where some states were suing the federal government to enforce immigration laws
i don't think that went well for the states that brought the suit
