The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 I can’t believe (actually I can) he’s going after weed. What a complete imbecile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I can’t believe (actually I can) he’s going after weed. What a complete imbecile. That's not what he is doing. U.S. attorneys have been told for sometime now to back off weed prosecutions in states that have legalized it. He has given permission to prosecutors in those states to feel free to go after drug dealers and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 It's just a... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: That's not what he is doing. U.S. attorneys have been told for sometime now to back off weed prosecutions in states that have legalized it. He has given permission to prosecutors in those states to feel free to go after drug dealers and such. I’m sure the people in the canabis industry will feel quite comforted by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I’m sure the people in the canabis industry will feel quite comforted by that. Well maybe the state legislatures should have taken this into account when they went against federal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Man, if there was only some way to change federal law. A collection of individuals who could meet in some sort of Congress to deliberate and pass legislation. Perhaps they could be regularly chosen from amongst the people to do such a civic duty and face voter backlash if they do not seek to carry out the will of their constituents. Oh well, !@#$ Sessions and his facist/nazi/misogynistic/racist/blahblahblah acts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 34 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I can’t believe (actually I can) he’s going after weed. What a complete imbecile. It's the law. Marijuana is illegal in this country. Sessions, unlike Holder, is doing his job and enforcing the law. Don't blame Sessions. He's acting responsibly and enforcing the law. He didn't write the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 19 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It's the law. Marijuana is illegal in this country. Sessions, unlike Holder, is doing his job and enforcing the law. Don't blame Sessions. He's acting responsibly and enforcing the law. He didn't write the law. Yes ! Round up the 10 million illegals and send them out while we are enforcing laws!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 20 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It's the law. Marijuana is illegal in this country. Sessions, unlike Holder, is doing his job and enforcing the law. Don't blame Sessions. He's acting responsibly and enforcing the law. He didn't write the law. I blame the SCOTUS for not ruling on it. There’s the real failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just now, baskin said: Yes ! Round up the 10 million illegals and send them out while we are enforcing laws!! Yes. Because IT'LL FORCE CONGRESS TO REFORM THE LAW. That's the thing ****heads like you keep missing. Arbitrarily deciding to not enforce the law removes any motivation for actually reforming the law, in addition to granting or protecting no rights, misleading people as to their status under the law, and allowing the future enforcement of the law at the same capricious whimsy with which you suspend enforcement. Process matters. 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I blame the SCOTUS for not ruling on it. There’s the real failure. It's not SCOTUS's responsibility to rewrite the law, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I blame the SCOTUS for not ruling on it. There’s the real failure. So, is it Sessions fault for enforcing the law now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, is it Sessions fault for enforcing the law now? Laws should be illegal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Laws should be illegal. The real question is differentiating between legal laws and illegal laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yes. Because IT'LL FORCE CONGRESS TO REFORM THE LAW. That's the thing ****heads like you keep missing. Arbitrarily deciding to not enforce the law removes any motivation for actually reforming the law, in addition to granting or protecting no rights, misleading people as to their status under the law, and allowing the future enforcement of the law at the same capricious whimsy with which you suspend enforcement. Process matters. It's not SCOTUS's responsibility to rewrite the law, either. No, but I’d argue that the constitution does not give the government the right to arbitrarily restrict pocession of things that cause no harm. I’d argue, SIR, that the constitution does not give right to prohibit property without worthy cause. I’d argue that. And as the SCOTUS’ role is to defend the constitution I pin the oppression in them. That I do. 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, is it Sessions fault for enforcing the law now? This is petty, economically stupid, and the law is unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: No, but I’d argue that the constitution does not give the government the right to arbitrarily restrict pocession of things that cause no harm. I’d argue, SIR, that the constitution does not give right to prohibit property without worthy cause. I’d argue that. And as the SCOTUS’ role is to defend the constitution I pin the oppression in them. That I do. This is petty, economically stupid, and the law is unconstitutional. Should Sessions decide whether or not it is unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Should Sessions decide whether or not it is unconstitutional? Sessions should use common sense. Ypu our can play devils advocate on this, but if you’re a conservative and libertarian like me you could not look past it. I believe eve in what this country was supposed to be more than what it is. I strive to make it how it should be. Prohibition once outlawed alcohol; was a man wrong for downing a beer? Don’t be a fool. You’re not on the high ground. And the economic stupidity of your argument makes you look foolish. Unleash a new industry and let the economy prosper and the deficit reduce. But no, you want to be a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Sessions was pretty clear from the get-go: He will enforce the laws on the books. If you don't like the laws as written, petition Congress to change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Sessions should use common sense. Ypu our can play devils advocate on this, but if you’re a conservative and libertarian like me you could not look past it. I believe eve in what this country was supposed to be more than what it is. I strive to make it how it should be. Prohibition once outlawed alcohol; was a man wrong for downing a beer? Don’t be a fool. You’re not on the high ground. And the economic stupidity of your argument makes you look foolish. Unleash a new industry and let the economy prosper and the deficit reduce. But no, you want to be a fool. Sessions should follow the law. The laws are made by the legislative branch and confirmed by the executive branch. The executive branch doesn't choose the laws that are followed. You call me a fool for desiring that we adhere to the Constitution but you can't see the forest for the trees. Obama decided that he was going to go it alone and ruled by fiat. What has happened to all of his EO's? Now, tell me. Should the Attorney General follow the law or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KW95 - JA17 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Sessions is clueless and a big liar at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 I always drive a little over the speed limit and never get a ticket. I'm an illegal driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts