S----y schumer pushing hard to legalize pot in ALL the states.

[Dee]

And what was that Amendment that they used to ban alcohol?

It was the 18th Amendment banning alcohol in 1917, and the 18th Amendment is the ONLY constitutional amendment to ever be repealed.

Alcohol prohibition was accomplished through THE VOLSTEAD ACT (18th Amendment). Then in 1933 I believe, the VOLSTEAD ACT (18th Amendment)was repealed making alcohol legal again.

Also the Constitution "supercedes" state law.

I think that's what I said.

[Doublebass73]

And what was that Amendment that they used to ban alcohol?

It was the 18th Amendment banning alcohol in 1917, and the 18th Amendment is the ONLY constitutional amendment to ever be repealed.

Alcohol prohibition was accomplished through THE VOLSTEAD ACT (18th Amendment). Then in 1933 I believe, the VOLSTEAD ACT (18th Amendment)was repealed making alcohol legal again.

Also the Constitution "supercedes" state law.

I think that's what I said.

Yes, any powers given to the federal government by the Constitution supercede state law but in the case of drug prohibition that power is not given to the federal government by the Constitution therefore drug prohibition (or legalization) is up to the states according to the 10th Amendment.

[Dee]

That's the way it was supposed to be, but States Rights ended in 1862, and was ratified in Appomattox Court House in Virginia in 1865.
Lincoln the liberator.

[Doublebass73]

The Preamble of the Con and ''or to the people''' in the 10th says what it says. The 10th could have said  'or left up to the people of the states'....but it didn't say that. It allows for states to operate individually AND allows the people to function nationally on issues of nation importance.

It was the 21st amendment that repealed the 18th Amendment. 1933 I think, the pre-WW2 years.

So in other words you're trying to twist the original meaning of the 10th Amendment so that it suits your agenda, just like liberals do with the 2nd Amendment. After all the 2nd Amendment says "regulated" right? That means we can regulate guns say the liberals.

Fortunately we don't have to guess and twist words like you're doing. We have extensive writings by the founding fathers as to what their intent was for each Amendment beyond the plain English they are written in. Read Federalist #45 by James Madison. He made things quite clear.

Here's what Madison had to say on the subject, if this doesn't drive the point home then nothing will.

"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

[Doublebass73]

That's the way it was supposed to be, but States Rights ended in 1862, and was ratified in Appomattox Court House in Virginia in 1865.
Lincoln the liberator.

Lincoln was the beginning of the end for sure.

[Doublebass73]

You're absolutely not taking the 10th Amendment literally. You're trying to to apply leftist thinking in regards to the commerce clause. The federal government also uses the commerce clause to regulate private firearms sales between people who live in different states. You and I know this is blatantly unconstitutional yet you're using the exact same reasoning and trying to apply it to drug prohibition.

If you want to ban drugs I get it but there are ways to do it other than violating the Constitution. We have a precedent, you know how they did it with alcohol. That was the correct application of the Constitution. If Conservatives truly want "rule of law" then they would be advocating for a Constitutional amendment or state level bans, there's no mystery as to what the 10th Amendment says.

[Doublebass73]

While the lefty's are incorrect 99.99% of the time they actually had it right on using the 10th to legalize MJ in some states. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The other issues you mentioned the leftists are incorrect of course, especially using the 10th to justify restrictive state gun laws. The 10th does not supersede the 2nd or any other amendment. Abortion is morally wrong and is murder in my opinion but because it's not mentioned in the Constitution it's also a 10th Amendment issue. We need a Constitutional amendment which defines life as beginning at conception so that abortion could be prosecuted as a murder. The libby activist judges in Roe v. Wade made some BS up out of thin air to define abortion as a "right". We'd be better off if abortion was left as a 10th Amendment issue that way there would at least be some states that defined it as murder. Because of Roe that can't be done  even though the truth is that it's a 10th Amendment issue as written.

[Doublebass73]

DB73...

Yeah...the left has the righties working for them now. It appears you view the Con as a permission  allowed document as a dogmatic construct.

I don't....if something in the Con isn't prohibited,  then its allowed. Ok, and unrestricted for people or government to pursue as natural rights..

.TM7

There's already a process in place for what you just mentioned, it called a Constitutional Amendment. Pot can be banned through that process just like alcohol was. I can't believe knowing your stance on other issues you're sitting here advocating for big government. That's why our country is FUBARed to begin with, people ignoring the Constitution like what you're advocating.

You're missing the whole intent of the 10th Amendment, the spirit of the 10th Amendment and also ignoring the words of James Madison himself. One of the reasons for the 10th Amendment was to prevent states from imposing their will on other states. The founders wanted each state to be sovereign nations with the only role of the federal government to be what Madison mentioned in what I posted before. That way if Arkansas wants to ban pot within its borders the people of California have no say in the matter. If Arkansas wants to ban abortion California should have no say in the matter.

What you're advocating is called a large central government which is what we already have. You're advocating for one homogenized America instead of a nation of 50 sovereign states.

“No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.”

John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

[Doublebass73]

The 10th, The Con, and natural reason does not prohibit The People acting in unison without legalist paralysis.
.
.TM7

You are correct, it does not prohibit the people acting in unison but it does however require a Constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states for the people to act in unison on issues that are not covered by the Constitution such as drugs otherwise it's up to the individual states to decide for themselves, that's what you're failing to grasp. Otherwise we would end up with tyranny of the majority which is what you are proposing. It's all written into the Constitution already, there's a process for everything.

Using your logic the people can also act in unsion without legalist paralysis to ban cars. It's for the greater good just like banning drugs right? We could save 35K+ people each year who would no longer die in car accidents. You're proposing a slippery slope just like the liberals do. You're completely ignoring the Bill of Rights for your own agenda, just like the liberals do.

Using your logic the people can also act in unsion without legalist paralysis to force everyone to get vaccinated as well, it's for the greater good, just like banning drugs. It works both ways, be careful which Constitutional violations you wish for.

[Davyboy]

Using your logic the people can also act in unsion without legalist paralysis to force everyone to get vaccinated as well, it's for the greater good, just like banning drugs. It works both ways, be careful which Constitutional violations you wish for.

Wow, that one hits me like a punch in the gut!  I don’t plan on getting the jab, if I can help it.  Doctor asked me what I’m afraid of.  My reply, “the medical industrial complex, the government and Karen”. 

What I’m trying to balance in my own brain, I do agree that the federal government is largely (90% +/- ) out of its legal authority.  But we have a constitutional republic, delegating elected officials to do our bidding.  Wouldn’t the Constitutional Amendment process, in addition to being cumbersome, just throw the “simple majority” of mob rule back into play through local elections?  Or, more like the electoral college, with states being somewhat more equal regardless of population?
Please don’t accuse me of being a troll, I’m looking for guidance.

[Davyboy]

Just another thought, how do billionaires like Gates, Soros, Bloomberg, Koch Bros fit into the mix, "buying" local elections across state lines.  Even some libs I know don't like it.  The so-called news media is not innocent either.  I'm not pretending to have an answer, just lots of questions.

[Doublebass73]

DB73...

Using your logic all the medical-pharma industrial complex has to do to force jabs is go state by state, or pass an Act or Amendment mandating a health tyranny. Easy peasy, just like they've been using your logic for years chipping away liberty. How's that working for you?

.....................

Davy......

Did you ever think the US as a democratic republic and 'sovereign citizens ceased to exist, and the Constitution nullified by the Act of 1871, which created THE UNITED STATES as a corporation owned by elite interest.  Seems to be the case and every judge, senator and Congressman knows it. Look it up.
.
.TM7

It's much more difficult to force jabs through all 50 states individually than it is to force jabs through 1 homogeneous America so thanks for making my point TM7. That was the whole intent of having individual sovereign states make their rules via the 10th Amendment instead an all powerful federal government. I'm glad you finally came around brother.

[Doublebass73]

Using your logic the people can also act in unsion without legalist paralysis to force everyone to get vaccinated as well, it's for the greater good, just like banning drugs. It works both ways, be careful which Constitutional violations you wish for.

Wow, that one hits me like a punch in the gut!  I don’t plan on getting the jab, if I can help it.  Doctor asked me what I’m afraid of.  My reply, “the medical industrial complex, the government and Karen”. 

What I’m trying to balance in my own brain, I do agree that the federal government is largely (90% +/- ) out of its legal authority.  But we have a constitutional republic, delegating elected officials to do our bidding.  Wouldn’t the Constitutional Amendment process, in addition to being cumbersome, just throw the “simple majority” of mob rule back into play through local elections?  Or, more like the electoral college, with states being somewhat more equal regardless of population?
Please don’t accuse me of being a troll, I’m looking for guidance.

You mentioned the Constitutional Amendment process as being cumbersome which is exactly the point. The founders made that process intentionally cumbersome to prevent a simple majority rule. In order for a Constitutional Amendment to pass it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states which is 38 states, far from a simple majority of 26 states. All states are equal in that process, each state has one vote so my small home state of New Hampshire has equal say to a large state like California.

[Doublebass73]

Just another thought, how do billionaires like Gates, Soros, Bloomberg, Koch Bros fit into the mix, "buying" local elections across state lines.  Even some libs I know don't like it.  The so-called news media is not innocent either.  I'm not pretending to have an answer, just lots of questions.

That's a pretty complex question, there are so many factors that go into that but it's rotten to the core. The Democrats have a bill called HR1 which if passed will violate exactly what we've been talking about, states rights although regarding elections in this case. It will federalize elections and bypass the will of the individual states, exactly what I've been warning TM7 about.