Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: I'm interested, but I have questions.  (Read 26247 times)

Scoobie Snaxxx

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • I'm a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2002, 12:48:40 pm »

Ok, I'll rephrase...
"ANYONE who does not favor drug legalization need not apply."

oh that's right, you are not a single-issue group  :P

The Hammer
Logged

Scoobie Snaxxx

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • I'm a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2002, 01:01:59 pm »

Reaper:

Thanks for all the quotes, it must have been really hard to cut and paste from the NORML webpage. ;)
You know, after reading those quotes, I must be wrong.  I mean if I don't agree with Jefferson on everything, I must be deranged.  I have GOT to find me a slave to impregnate!

Quoting other people is nice to support your own well thought out point.  I could easily find you a score of quotes supporting the position of keeping drugs illegal.  It doesn't change anything.

Look I have discovered what I was seeking.  My questions answered.  Dissention is not appreciated.  The Free State will not give autonomy to the sub-federal unit and therefore is NOT trying to simply replicate the Constitution.  Once again, this is fine, your group has the liberty to do what it pleases.

The best part is, I have NEVER stated to any of you my actual feelings about legalization of drugs.  Mostly, I was playing devil's advocate to see how some of you would address a minority view (well at least a minority view at a libertarian BB :D).  As it is written, "Some animals are more equal than others"

Inability to compromise with others may be your undoing.  Speaking as an ideologue, trust me, the hard line is hardly ever successful; especially when you are trying to do something as large-scale and powerful as the Free State Project.

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavour, if you actually suceed it will be to the benefit of us all.

The Hammer of God (oh sorry didn't mean to offend you with the God thing, you guys are pushing for a totally secular state as well, which of course the United States is most definately NOT)  ;D

Logged

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2002, 01:13:57 pm »

Let's see:

1) Restore the federal constitution
2) End the war on drugs
3) Remove stiffling unnecessary regulations
4) Lower taxes
5) Increase personal liberty AND responsibility
6) Remove laws on consensual crimes for consenting adults.

Well, there's 6 issues off the top of my head real quick.  I'm sure others here can add many more.  Doesn't sound like a one issue group to me.

Oh, and none of those quotes came to me via the NORML web page.  However, I fail to see what that has to do with it in the least.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - George Washington, 1796 -
« Last Edit: August 12, 2002, 01:16:05 pm by Reaper »
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

amyday

  • Guest
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2002, 02:52:52 pm »


Ok, I'll rephrase...
"ANYONE who does not favor drug legalization need not apply."

oh that's right, you are not a single-issue group  :P

The Hammer


Many christian groups will say that if you are homosexual, you need not apply. This doesn't mean that they are a single-issue group. I think the FSP would also say that if you favor the government owning all the means of product you need not apply. I would also think that if you believe that the government is responsible for the education of all children, then you also need not apply. You are using faulty logic if you take that fact that we believe support of the drug war is incompatable to our goal and jump to the conclusion that it is our single issue. We have a lot of issues where we would like to see change.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2002, 09:00:13 pm »

I'm interested in hearing how any conservative constitutionalist can argue that the federalized War on Drugs is compatible with the Constitution.  The "domestic tranquility" part is just one of the side benefits that the Founders thought would result from replacing the Articles of Confed. w/ the Constitution; it emphatically IS NOT a right of Congress to do whatever they think improves "domestic tranquility."  Congress has enumerated functions, and controlling what substances consenting adults put into their bodies is not one of them.  Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment; why not drug prohibition?

As for the idea of compromise versus a hard line - when we start acting in the public arena we will start with moderate positions like legalization of marijuana.  However, we need to have people who are more radical than that if they are to be activists.  It's a fundamental principle of politics that activists are more radical than voters.  With 20,000 activists dedicated to radical reduction of government, that should result in pretty significant reduction in government in the short term if we are willing to tailor our message to existing realities.  Then we can talk about what to do next, once the beneficial effects of marijuana legalization become obvious.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2002, 09:12:46 pm »

Did somebody say radical?    ;D
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2002, 09:19:29 pm »

Yeah, color me part of the "flexible radical" faction, I guess. ;)
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2002, 11:53:56 pm »

Quote
I'm interested in hearing how any conservative constitutionalist can argue that the federalized War on Drugs is compatible with the Constitution


I don't suppose 'conservative constitutionalists' would make such an argument.  However, playing devils advocate (which I think is in short supply around here), it couldn't hurt to take a look at probable constitutional arguments the Free State will face.

Quote
we will start with moderate positions like legalization of marijuana


As good a place as any for the devil to start....  Precedent shows in California and Alaska (others?) that the Fed is loath to challenge a State, on constitutional grounds, when 'medical use' is used to legalize limited use of marijuana.  US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative smoothly dodged the issue, and also showed that proponents of drug use are loath to challenge the Feds on constitutional grounds.  My personal suspicion is that neither party wants to test the extent of the Commerce Clause in the constitution.

As long as these little rebellious acts are restricted to limited 'manufacturing and distribution', the Feds are content to allow us our petty freedoms.  

"legalization of marijuana" can easily be permitted by the Feds as long as it is for medical purposes and limited in distribution.  There is no judgment or opinion stating this, it is more a circumstance of abstention, and 'perhaps' common law.  

Wow...I'm on a role.  I'll start another message to continue...consider it a smoke break.
Logged

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2002, 11:57:17 pm »

For those interested in analysis of every detail of cannabis prohibition, covering medical and full legalization I highly recommend:

http://www.marijuananews.com

The author, Richard Cowan, has some brilliant insights and analysis of various attempts, court cases and constitutional issues.
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2002, 12:30:57 am »

Quote
Wow...I'm on a role.  I'll start another message to continue...consider it a smoke break.


Anyway, where was I?  Oh ya, constitutional arguments against States legalizing the use of Marijuana.

Lets say the Free State wants to legalize marijuana in general, not restricted to medical use.  It is not the 'use' of marijuana that would cause a challenge.  it is the 'manufacturing and distribution' of marijuana that would be in contradiction to the 'controlled Substances Act' (CSA).

Already, the feds have 'allowed' limited manufacturing and distribution even though it is contrary to CSA and following legal code.  However, I can assume that the Free State legalization would result in mass manufacturing and distribution.  This would be a whole new ball game, and you can bet your britches the Feds (ATF?) would arrest, confiscate, jail, and 'shoot in the line of duty'.  They need no constitutional justification for their actions; they act according to legislation and following legal code.  (legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment).

So there the Free State sits, with its citizens in Fed custody, private property now owned by the Feds, and bodies to bury.

The Free State files suit against the United States of America and said suit finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is no redress against the actions of the ATF, as they were acting under the color of law.  The suit is merely to establish that the residents of the Free State may, in the future, exercise their rights to smoke whatever they want.

I know I've been long winded in setting up the actual constitutional arguments, but I do think it important the FSP'ers discuss strategy, law, and barricades in detail (not just as 'geez, if I would be king' dreams.).

Anyway, I feel another smoke break coming on.  If ya'll are sick of my writings, just skip the next one from 'fubar'.   :-\
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2002, 12:48:45 am »


(legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment).


This is actually a very controversial doctrine.  The FF's thought that legislators should absolutely consider constitutionality when considering legislation.

Quote

So there the Free State sits, with its citizens in Fed custody, private property now owned by the Feds, and bodies to bury.


After the FS legalizes marijuana, it will still be federally illegal so there won't be a massive increase in manufacture right away.  No bodies to bury probably, but some high-profile arrests.  Leading to...

Quote

The Free State files suit against the United States of America and said suit finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is no redress against the actions of the ATF, as they were acting under the color of law.  The suit is merely to establish that the residents of the Free State may, in the future, exercise their rights to smoke whatever they want.


No redress against the ATF's past actions, but we could have the CSA struck down.  If that doesn't work we pass laws banning ATF & FBI actions in state.  Fedgov has to sue us; they'll win, but it will take some time.  In the meantime we propose a compromise by which we ban the export of marijuana from the FS to the rest of the US, but production, distribution, and use in-state become legal.  Over time we "forget" to enforce this provision but the fedgov is too busy to make us do it.

Or...the fedgov takes a hard line and refuses to compromise.  State militia created & mobilized, & and we have a faceoff.  Suits, countersuits, and threats fly back & forth, the upshot being that the fedgov decides to compromise.
Alternative to militia: referendum on secession, & we decide to press a whole host of issues at the same time.  All these demands must be met in order for the referendum to be cancelled.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2002, 01:15:22 am »

Quote
For those interested in analysis of every detail of cannabis prohibition, covering medical and full legalization I highly recommend:

http://www.marijuananews.com


I'll check it out after I'm done.  Kind of a test, to see how off-base I am  ;D

Quote
I feel another smoke break coming on


All done, and ready to finish this project that started out as a much shorter version....

Of course the Free State would challenge the CSA, based upon the fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.  The Feds would counter with Section 8, clause c, of the United States Constitution (giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States).

Now, you may think smoking pot in the Free State has absolutely nothing to do with 'commerce among the several States', but some current Justices of the Supreme Court would beg to differ.  Since the "New Deal", it seems that 'among the several States' includes 'intrastate commerce that effects interstate commerce (directly or indirectly)'.

Several cases have led to this situation, but if you want a good example of what the Free State would face, you can look at US v Lopez (1995).  It deals with the 'Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990'.  Check out all opinions, and you will see that the only shining example and hope for the Free State is with Justice Thomas.  It is possible that Rehnquist and others would join Thomas, but I wouldn't hold my breath.   http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

OK, I'm all smoked out and rather tired.  Hope I haven't bored too many of you.   8)

BTW, I highly suspect that JS knows all, and is only trying to stir the 'pot'....
Logged

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2002, 01:29:48 am »

Quote
we propose a compromise by which we ban the export of marijuana from the FS to the rest of the US, but production, distribution, and use in-state become legal.


Why not write that into the original State legislation thereby forgoing the Commerce Clause (until it becomes apparent that the Free State is not enforcing the restrictions)?
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2002, 01:30:12 am »

You're right that current Justices have been very slow in restricting the abuse of Commerce Clause interpretation.  However, they're moving in the right direction.  Also, part of the problem lies in lawyers, as since the New Deal they have not been willing to argue from a strong originalist position.  This despite the fact that Scalia has said that he favors "original intent of the framers" as the best theory of constitutional interpretation.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2002, 01:31:36 am »


Quote
we propose a compromise by which we ban the export of marijuana from the FS to the rest of the US, but production, distribution, and use in-state become legal.


Why not write that into the original State legislation thereby forgoing the Commerce Clause (until it becomes apparent that the Free State is not enforcing the restrictions)?


We could do that, depending on the circumstances.  However, if we are to create tension with the fedgov, which I think we should do whenever we can and get away with it, because it will help to polarize our voters in favor of autonomy, I think we should try to push the envelope on occasion.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up