DC Tom Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 21 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I’m not sure independents and libertarians and a healthy amount of others in legal states will appreciate this. Yes, the law must be dealt with. But im a conservative. People have wrongfully linked Trump to conservatism which is quite wrong, imo. This is not a good look. The majority of voters support legalization. This will not be looked at kindly by the majority of the electorate. The midterms are approaching. Do you see? This isn’t outfoxing Congress — it’s putting republicans in Congress on even shakier ground. Thats why Sessions is an idiot. And Trump. Theyre gonna really derail the conservative movement. The majority of voters are also too !@#$ing stupid to realize that Congress passes laws, not the president. Which is why the law never gets changed, just !@#$ed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: The majority of voters are also too !@#$ing stupid to realize that Congress passes laws, not the president. Which is why the law never gets changed, just !@#$ed with. This is a law that the POTUS could change though. It’ll be handled within 5 years I think it’s safe to say. History won’t look kindly upon those on the wrong side of the debate at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 It's an interesting topic as Republicans usually prefer states to decide (like gay marriage legalization), but as attorney general it's your obligation to enforce federal laws under the constitution. The DOJ does have prosecutorial discretion, but this seems to be a passion of Sessions. It remains to be seen if Session's decisions has any significant impact in states where it's already legal. Regardless, it's time to act Congress as we already have a huge problem with overcrowded prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: This is a law that the POTUS could change though. It’ll be handled within 5 years I think it’s safe to say. History won’t look kindly upon those on the wrong side of the debate at the end. No, it's not. The president can't change laws. Pot's status as a Schedule 1 drug is written in to the US legal code by Congress. That cannot be changed by the president. Because we don't have an Enabling Law, because we are not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, the mistaken belief that the president CAN change laws is the ultimate source of your whining about Sessions. The root cause here isn't Sessions deciding to enforce the law, but the Obama Administration's belief - expressed via Holder's actions - that "suspension of enforcement" is the same as "repeal." It's not. Suspension of enforcement doesn't grant a legal right to break a law, it just removes the inconvenience. And that inconvenience can be restored at any time, because prosecutorial discretion works both ways, and thus is not a substitute for legislation. Furthermore, if the legislative process had been properly followed by the Obama administration, and the 1970 CSA amended in Congress, you would have nothing to complain about now, because Sessions couldn't arbitrarily decide to prosecute something that's not against the law. Your view that the law should be suspended or amended by other than legislative means is THE reason for Sessions' ability to restore enforcement, and perpetuates the law you want amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 30 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, it's not. The president can't change laws. Pot's status as a Schedule 1 drug is written in to the US legal code by Congress. That cannot be changed by the president. Because we don't have an Enabling Law, because we are not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, the mistaken belief that the president CAN change laws is the ultimate source of your whining about Sessions. The root cause here isn't Sessions deciding to enforce the law, but the Obama Administration's belief - expressed via Holder's actions - that "suspension of enforcement" is the same as "repeal." It's not. Suspension of enforcement doesn't grant a legal right to break a law, it just removes the inconvenience. And that inconvenience can be restored at any time, because prosecutorial discretion works both ways, and thus is not a substitute for legislation. Furthermore, if the legislative process had been properly followed by the Obama administration, and the 1970 CSA amended in Congress, you would have nothing to complain about now, because Sessions couldn't arbitrarily decide to prosecute something that's not against the law. Your view that the law should be suspended or amended by other than legislative means is THE reason for Sessions' ability to restore enforcement, and perpetuates the law you want amended. You again with the fascism...my goodness. And yeah, the President can do something about canibis by having it rescheduled. That’s something he can do. Pipe down now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: You again with the fascism...my goodness. And yeah, the President can do something about canibis by having it rescheduled. That’s something he can do. Pipe down now. You keep returning to the fascist belief that the executive can do whatever the !@#$ he wants. He can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: You keep returning to the fascist belief that the executive can do whatever the !@#$ he wants. He can't. But can't you see? He's stated it clairvointley (sic) over and over. 8 hours ago, The_Dude said: Tom, dude are you stoned? I’ce argued on numerous posts in this thread that the SCOTUS should deal with this. I’m not saying it should be ignored. You keep missing that point though I keep clairvointley stating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, DC Tom said: You keep returning to the fascist belief that the executive can do whatever the !@#$ he wants. He can't. Because in this case the POTUS CAN. He he can have the drug rescheduled and there’s been a clear precedent set on this law being ignored by executive decision. We we practice common law and NOT code law, homey. Your rigid idea of how things work isn’t how things work. Edited January 6, 2018 by The_Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 12 hours ago, DC Tom said: No, it's not. The president can't change laws. Pot's status as a Schedule 1 drug is written in to the US legal code by Congress. That cannot be changed by the president. Because we don't have an Enabling Law, because we are not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, the mistaken belief that the president CAN change laws is the ultimate source of your whining about Sessions. The root cause here isn't Sessions deciding to enforce the law, but the Obama Administration's belief - expressed via Holder's actions - that "suspension of enforcement" is the same as "repeal." It's not. Suspension of enforcement doesn't grant a legal right to break a law, it just removes the inconvenience. And that inconvenience can be restored at any time, because prosecutorial discretion works both ways, and thus is not a substitute for legislation. Furthermore, if the legislative process had been properly followed by the Obama administration, and the 1970 CSA amended in Congress, you would have nothing to complain about now, because Sessions couldn't arbitrarily decide to prosecute something that's not against the law. Your view that the law should be suspended or amended by other than legislative means is THE reason for Sessions' ability to restore enforcement, and perpetuates the law you want amended. Fascism? Ok! Listen, the federal police have to decide where to spend resources. Helping the country best determines where and what laws they can enforce best. Do the police waste time and money busting every person that drives a mile or two over the speed limit? It's the law they should, right? But do they? I guess you think we have national socialist highway cops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: Because in this case the POTUS CAN. He he can have the drug rescheduled and there’s been a clear precedent set on this law being ignored by executive decision. We we practice common law and NOT code law, homey. Your rigid idea of how things work isn’t how things work. Do us all a favor and catch up on the chores you missed yesterday. You are being nothing but obtuse here by blindly repeating yourself claiming that the president can change the law on a whim. Continuing to spew your bs without anything to back it up is a sign of a very stupid person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 So Sessions led a smear campaign against James Comey? Wow, that is seriously corrupt. DOJ is still doing a Hillary investigation? Damn, if that's a political hit job, people should be going to jail. And Why was Trump so intent on Sessions not recusing himself? Something big to hide? This all will not end well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So Sessions led a smear campaign against James Comey? Wow, that is seriously corrupt. DOJ is still doing a Hillary investigation? Damn, if that's a political hit job, people should be going to jail. And Why was Trump so intent on Sessions not recusing himself? Something big to hide? This all will not end well Your thoughts really don't count for much around here. It's your history man. It might help you a little if you post a legitimate link to your crap, if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Your thoughts really don't count for much around here. It's your history man. It might help you a little if you post a legitimate link to your crap, if you can. Sorry, I forgot you guys live in the right wing bubble and don't get much real information Quote Sessions may need to go, because he oversaw or directed a public smear campaign against the sitting FBI director, James B. Comey. Schmidt writes that Sessions “wanted one negative article a day in the news media about Mr. Comey, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting” between a congressional staffer and a Sessions aide seeking dirt on Comey. The Justice Department flatly denies this account. But if it turns out to be true, that conduct is far beyond what is appropriate for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-desperate-to-protect-himself-but-from-what/2018/01/05/3eeba824-f250-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.23438695a13f Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Sorry, I forgot you guys live in the right wing bubble and don't get much real information Then provide a link, idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Do us all a favor and catch up on the chores you missed yesterday. You are being nothing but obtuse here by blindly repeating yourself claiming that the president can change the law on a whim. Continuing to spew your bs without anything to back it up is a sign of a very stupid person. “Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act Ya see...there. And I don’t want to hear crap about Wikipedia being an unreliable source because I’ve consistently found it to be accurate. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN CHANGE THIS LAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, The_Dude said: “Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act Ya see...there. And I don’t want to hear crap about Wikipedia being an unreliable source because I’ve consistently found it to be accurate. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN CHANGE THIS LAW. Damn, you are full of yourself. Your preemptive attempt to legitimize Wikipedia by stating that it has your approval is narcissistic and an amateur move so transparent, that if you were a decent person, I would pity you. You should go back to the kiddie table and work on your game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallie Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 52 minutes ago, The_Dude said: “Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act Ya see...there. And I don’t want to hear crap about Wikipedia being an unreliable source because I’ve consistently found it to be accurate. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN CHANGE THIS LAW. Wikipedia's website offers this definition of the site: "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation." So I'm thinkin' that the level of content ranges from Lorraine, in Grand Rapids, waiting at a red light to the most learned of scholars who has a spare moment for some Internet fun. I'll buy the offerings as background, but not as bet ya' life on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, Keukasmallie said: Wikipedia's website offers this definition of the site: "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation." So I'm thinkin' that the level of content ranges from Lorraine, in Grand Rapids, waiting at a red light to the most learned of scholars who has a spare moment for some Internet fun. I'll buy the offerings as background, but not as bet ya' life on it. Yes, but you must take into consideration that it has "The Dudes" explicit approval. It has never let him down. Neither has weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Do us all a favor and catch up on the chores you missed yesterday. You are being nothing but obtuse here by blindly repeating yourself claiming that the president can change the law on a whim. Continuing to spew your bs without anything to back it up is a sign of a very stupid person. The dude already killed you. Just like everyone else not named Tiberius ?? Just stay down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Teddy KGB said: The dude already killed you. Just like everyone else not named Tiberius ?? Just stay down. Quit splashing the pot! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts