 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Depends on the court we are talking about. The current court has done all kinds of crazy things with our rights. That the power of the single state is losing ground to the idea of a single nation in an era of "globalization" is hardly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
But does your constitution not give you supreme court the right to do “all kinds of crazy things” with your rights? By the way, I was talking about this story: US outlaws 'medical' marijuana (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I must confess that this has always puzzled me. Why are "states" preferable to a single state? I can certainly understand how in earlier times the limits of communications and geography necessitated the subdivision of the nation, but this no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) There is a FLEXIBILITY built into the system. Sometimes it's a good thing in my view, sometimes it's a bad thing. My argument is less with the govt. system than the people of this country -- they often seem not to care about politics, and when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Right. And I take my read on what's constitutional from what the founding fathers *intended*, not from what the current supreme court says about the matter. As I've said before, many times, effectively answering the question posed. As an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yes, there is a benefit. One leadership at that scale cannot see the trees for the forest -- only the big problems could be dealt with, and not the smaller local ones. It is my assertion that I have no idea from here in CA what would suit the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yeah, but... Doesn't the Constitution also expressly empower the judicial system to interpret the law as it applies case-by-case? That seems a fairly clear indication that the founding fathers "intended" to have the justices making the exact (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Smaller states == smaller tyrannies. More states == more of a marketplace of ideas. Do you want a system in which the current population of China and India can vote to nuke Scotland??? (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I want a system where countries do not want to "nuke" others and where wars are not fought via focus groups and media driven opinion polls. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I'll buy that, at least about certain issues. It seems to me that some states would immediately erode civil rights if given the chance and not prevented by the Fed from doing so. Yes, we always have privacy and search-and-seizure issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Well, Scotland. And let's take care of Luxembourg while we're at it... All right, though--I see your point. Perhaps what I'm envisioning requires greater individual responsibility and participation in the Government than is currently the case, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) It would indeed be nice if a war-less system had *ever* existed. Obviously a world without war is preferable to a world in which war is common, but wars were fought for stupid reasons long before focus groups and media polls existed; there's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Me too. We just disagree about how to get from here to there. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yes, but aren't they in fact responsible, not for war as a concept, but for certain kinds of war, and certain ways of carrying out war? Arguably focus groups and the media had convinced successive administrations that the american populace (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) While the manner in which wars are executed is influenced by these institutions, I don't think they're responsible for the wars themselves, which is what I hoped to say. The fact that they're the current flavor of the month for influencing war (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Actually, it is my understanding that the 16th Amendment has no REAL force in law -- the Supreme Court itself stated this in the case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916): "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Whoops! Hoist by my own petard. Drat. I was trying to say that the putative public opinion (which we have discovered is actually false, at least currently it seems to be) is DETRIMENTAL to the effective prosecution of war. War is messy and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
