CNS News, Obama Administration Continues Spending under Unconstitutional HC law. - Polidicks

If the retarded Rehnquist supposedly conservative court could rule that homegrown medical marijuana could be prohibited federally under the commerce clause because it could possibly have an effect on interstate commerce, than the Supreme Court better rule this constitutional. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27984055]You can't call it unconstitutional until the supreme court says so you dunkass[/QUOTE] lol ya you can learn how america works because a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional it is now considered unconstitutional until it is appealed to the supreme court

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27997973]lol ya you can learn how america works because a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional it is now considered unconstitutional until it is appealed to the supreme court[/QUOTE] not if it's contradicted by other federal judges saying it's constitutional.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27998655]not if it's contradicted by other federal judges saying it's constitutional.[/QUOTE] True, but only if they do so after the ruling for it being unconstitutional. Here's how it works. Each ruling is represented by a letter and the order upon when the ruling was done. TTTTTTTTTTCCUU? The 10 T's represent the throwouts, the C's represent the Rulings that the law was constitutional and the U's represent the rulings on the law being particialy, or fully unconstitutional. Each ruling took the place of the previous one. The last ruling for it is the current one. So in order for it to be considered constitutional again, the next judge will have to rule it so. It's the order of operations.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27998655]not if it's contradicted by other federal judges saying it's constitutional.[/QUOTE] No, it is unconstitutional for that jurisdiction. When the USG inevitably appeals it, the result will affect all US jurisdictions, i.e. all states of the union.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;27992533]If it's been deemed by a Federal Court that the law is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional until the decision is reviewed by a higher court.[/QUOTE] and it's also been deemed by two federal courts to be constitutional [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;27994358]So your saying that the order of t he rulings doesn't matter? [/QUOTE] uh yeah until it hits the supreme court, the order of the rulings doesn't really matter it matters what the highest court that's ruled on it is [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;27998753]True, but only if they do so after the ruling for it being unconstitutional. Here's how it works. Each ruling is represented by a letter and the order upon when the ruling was done. TTTTTTTTTTCCUU? The 10 T's represent the throwouts, the C's represent the Rulings that the law was constitutional and the U's represent the rulings on the law being particialy, or fully unconstitutional. Each ruling took the place of the previous one. The last ruling for it is the current one. So in order for it to be considered constitutional again, the next judge will have to rule it so. It's the order of operations.[/QUOTE] uh no there's a hierarchy of courts in the united states the courts that have found it constitutional and unconstitutional are all the same level it's all about the level of the court, not when the ruling happens jeez

So by that logic, the law either can't go into effect for over half the states or just Florida. Considering that over half the states joined in with Florida.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28001792]So by that logic, the law can't go into effect for over half the states then.[/QUOTE] please tell me what the fuck you're talking about

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28001708]and it's also been deemed by two federal courts to be constitutional[/QUOTE] Uhh yes... there are multiple jurisdictions at the federal level (i.e. at the same level on the court hierachy). As I said, both sides have the chance to appeal the decision (i.e. when it was deemed constitutional or unconstitutional). As there has been rulings in favor of both parties, one side will inevitably appeal, and a decision will result that affects the whole Union.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;28001841]Uhh yes... there are multiple jurisdictions at the federal level (i.e. at the same level on the court hierachy). As I said, both sides have the chance to appeal the decision (i.e. when it was deemed constitutional or unconstitutional). As there has been rulings in favor of both parties, one side will inevitably appeal, and a decision will result that affects the whole Union.[/QUOTE] right but it's not officially unconstitutional yet

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28001807]please tell me what the fuck you're talking about[/QUOTE] I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. in this flordia case, over 26 states were involved.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28001864]right but it's not officially unconstitutional yet[/QUOTE] Yes it is officially unconstitional in the jurisdictions that have determined that it impeeds on certain clauses of the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28001891]I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. in this flordia case, over 26 states were involved.[/QUOTE] that was a lawsuit that the ags of 26 states signed on to that doesn't mean that court has jurisdiction over 26 states

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28001864]right but it's not officially unconstitutional yet[/QUOTE] But that doesn't mean the congress can violate a federal court order either.

Who would've thought that Glaber of all people wouldn't know how the government works?

[QUOTE=Glaber;28001905]But that doesn't mean the congress can violate a federal court order either.[/QUOTE] they're not violating anything in which of these decisions did the judge order the law's enforcement to be suspended? [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RBM11;28001921]Who would've thought that Glaber of all people wouldn't know how the government works?[/QUOTE] he brags about how he doesn't know about science/the government/etc but just repeats what he hears from talk show hosts

This is thorny legal territory I wish Lankist were back

Hey I have a question. If the government can tell people what they can't have(marijuana and other illegal drugs) why can't they tell people what they must have? It struck me as kinda hypocritical to be so outraged at one and not the other.

[QUOTE=TH89;28001995]This is thorny legal territory I wish Lankist were back[/QUOTE] yeah me too

[QUOTE=Lambeth;28002013]Hey I have a question. If the government can tell people what they can't have(marijuana and other illegal drugs) why can't they tell people what they must have? It struck me as kinda hypocritical to be so outraged at one and not the other.[/QUOTE] Because the US is scared in relation to anything that may be related to 'socialism'. It's actually rediculous.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;28002013]Hey I have a question. If the government can tell people what they can't have(marijuana and other illegal drugs) why can't they tell people what they must have? It struck me as kinda hypocritical to be so outraged at one and not the other.[/QUOTE] :psyduck: [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;28002034]Because the US is scared in relation to anything that may be related to 'socialism'. It's actually rediculous.[/QUOTE] Wait, whose side are you on?

[QUOTE=TH89;28002040]Wait, whose side are you on?[/QUOTE] Neither.

Marijuana is socialism. :ussr:

[QUOTE=Lambeth;28002013]Hey I have a question. If the government can tell people what they can't have(marijuana and other illegal drugs) why can't they tell people what they must have? It struck me as kinda hypocritical to be so outraged at one and not the other.[/QUOTE] Making something mandatory is a little different to prohibiting it. One is just placing boundaries while the other requires people to actively do something or face the consequences. Still, there is far more other stuff that the Federal government mandates which no-one cares about, Labour laws and the like.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;28002063]Marijuana is socialism. :ussr:[/QUOTE] I wasn't referring to marijuana.

It just seems like an arbitrary line to draw in the sand. Forcing people to buy health insurance ( but if they can't afford it the goverment will help pay for it) is unconstitutional yet selling or smoking a fairly harmless drug can get you put in the slammer. [editline]11th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;28002072]I wasn't referring to marijuana.[/QUOTE] oh I know

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28001924]they're not violating anything in which of these decisions did the judge order the law's enforcement to be suspended?[/QUOTE] Did you not pay close attention to the Florida judge's ruling or the case? [quote]Vinson’s decision did not include an injunction to stop the implementation of health care reform on the grounds that an injunction would be superfluous. He argued that the government would stop implementing the law automatically once it was announced as unconstitutional. [/quote] source [url]http://www.cnbc.com/id/41375835[/url] Personaly, I think the judge made a mistake in trusting this administration.

Of course you do, you take whatever chance you can to criticize Obama.

Not just that, but look at what they did after his ruling. They completely ignored it!

[QUOTE=Glaber;28002542]Not just that, but look at what they did after his ruling. They completely ignored it![/QUOTE] What do you expect him to do? Apologize?