Rand Paul wants Obama to go after Colorado and Washington.

[bentom187]

OH GOD! Its MAGIC SOULS TIME!!!!

You are not BORN with rights. You know people kill babies. The babies do nothing about it. They have no inherent power. They have no inherent right.

ONLY in a framework where an external force is given authority of power (A GOVERNMENT) can rights even exist. Under such a system that authority can recognize your right to WHATEVER. OUTSIDE of that system rights cannot and do not exist. Well for rational people. For irrational people I imagine they can make things up.

And one should note that EVERY libertarian paradise in history has done exactally NOTHING for the people in that system. That ALL THE WORLDS entire accomplishments have been from governments INFLECTING/ASSERTING themselves on their populations, to the betterment of thoes populations.

Yes horrible things have occurred under governments. But horrible things happened without them too.

Really I said nothing about souls, man. You can observe we are all born equal as human beings if you stay in a maternity ward long enough. That's from our nature whatever it means to you is irrelevant it is a objective fact unless you give birth to something else in which case you have bigger problems than politics.

You know people kill babies.

That just means people violated their rights without regard for the most defenseless in our society. you can respect it or not, but they are there and every individual has a right to preserve them as they see fit.

ONLY in a framework where an external force is given authority of power (A GOVERNMENT) can rights even exist.

lol.Where does the right of a government derived from ? the rights of the governed, and if you don't have that right as a individual then there is no way to confer that power to a government. Its just simple logic. One created the other, and it is not the other way around.

And one should note that EVERY libertarian paradise in history has done exactally NOTHING for the people in that system. That ALL THE WORLDS entire accomplishments have been from governments INFLECTING/ASSERTING themselves on their populations, to the betterment of thoes populations.

Well please point to one place where the state/government did not exist. I'll be waiting. I am not against anything "being done" or society, I just think the things that are going to be done, happen with consent and voluntarily.

Show me a place where the state/government created paradise.

The philosophy of liberty
[YOUTUBEIF]MeWHmehAH28[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[G.O. Joe]

This thread is its own demonstration of how fucked up everything is, always has been, and always will be. One word - power.

People think it's money, because money is power and those with power tend to control the money, but, it's simply power. That's why there's going to be trouble in CO and WA. Is CA not going backwards? Is any other state on the same path as CO? Masses of people only have power during revolutions - there was a measure of change in the 60's because of the riots and general unrest. No unrest now, except from agents provocateur at certain events; the FBI learned much from that era.

Make someone a jailer, a policeman, a politician, a member of the school board - they become the man and you become their property. They neglect and abuse property that isn't valuable to them. If you think the man is wise, omniscient, caring - it's because he really isn't the man, or you have no idea what's really going on.

I bet every culture that has ever been has come up with the same practical advice - if you want to do something, the last thing you want to do is ask permission. Expect to be punished even if you didn't need permission. It has nothing to do with politics, except that politics is an extension of this human nature.

 

[vta]

You are not BORN with rights.

I know bentom187 addressed this...but please check out this video. I can't think anyone else with as much knowledge of the Constitution and writings of our Founding Fathers then The Judge. This video covers our rights and freedoms explicitly.

[YOUTUBEIF]KiXup3fWX7w[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Jhhnn]

You would be right he says he is not going to legalize it, but that's because its up to the states and congress, he says he will stay out of it, and he is working with Eric Holder right now to curb the DOJ's prosecution of mandatory minimums , and its up to the individual to choose a jury trial, and its up to the jury to nullify stupid laws if congress wont listen.

Just look at his voting record and take a unbiased look into it and decide who is getting played the individual or the establishment on both sides R & D, since they are both authoritarians.You just have to vote people in who are anti authoritarian and they are out there.

But standing around and expecting a POTUS to unilaterally break the law then you must expect the same from the opposite party when they elect a POTUS. Which is a bad thing.

Well, yeh, but Obama didn't unilaterally break federal law. The people of Colorado forced him to act, one way or the other.

He took the pro-legalization path, quite knowingly, I'm sure.

Another oft-overlooked aspect of this is that federal law makes no distinction between medical and recreational cannabis, meaning that every president since 1996 has "broken federal law". Obama's detractors generally refuse to address that, even when questioned directly, point-blank, as I'm doing now.

As a practical matter, federal law prohibiting cannabis cultivation is unenforceable in CO. But Rand Paul demands that Obama enforce that law. He goes on to say that he favors the decriminalization placebo.

Yeh, yeh, yeh- then we get the song & dance about Congress, jury nullification & States' Rights, as if Obama & Holder haven't called on Congress to act while respecting States' Rights in CO & WA. When detractors claim he could change the classification of cannabis, which might be true, he neatly avoids that trap by demanding Congress do it, which they def can. Meanwhile, we get the breathing room in CO to show that legalization, not half-assed decrim, is sound policy, provide an example for other states to follow. Prohibitionist bullshit can't stand against the reality we are creating, enabled by the Obama Admin.

It's probably the most astute political move this Admin has ever made, because we will succeed in CO. Barring some very unlikely twist of fate, legalization will be a bandwagon by the 2016 election.

The whole thing has left America's authoritarian Right ensnared in their own States' Rights rhetoric, sputtering in circles. Make no mistake about it, Rand Paul is part of that. If Obama gave in to what he demands, federal agents would be doing their usual all over CO, while the Hate-Um Obama! crowd would be screaming about him being a dictator.

As it is, Obama & Holder have rather neatly threaded the needle in a move that's clearly pro-legalization. It's up to us to take it from there.

 

[oldchuck]

I agree with you, Jhhnn, especially regarding Paul, but I think you are overestimating the Colorado element, significant though it might be.

Regulated legalization of some sort is inevitable. Obama most likely would agree but the process involves millions of moving parts. Democrats right now are focused on only one thing: this fall's elections, with a secondary time line of the next Presidential year. They are terrified they will lose not only the House but also the Senate. This fall's election could produce some very weird results, re: the right wing agenda and Cannabis. After the election the climate will change. How, we don't know, but I suspect no matter what Obama, being a lame duck, will take Cannabis off schedule I.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree with you, Jhhnn, especially regarding Paul, but I think you are overestimating the Colorado element, significant though it might be.

Regulated legalization of some sort is inevitable. Obama most likely would agree but the process involves millions of moving parts. Democrats right now are focused on only one thing: this fall's elections, with a secondary time line of the next Presidential year. They are terrified they will lose not only the House but also the Senate. This fall's election could produce some very weird results, re: the right wing agenda and Cannabis. After the election the climate will change. How, we don't know, but I suspect no matter what Obama, being a lame duck, will take Cannabis off schedule I.

I think there's a lot of uncertainty in the election, much of it pure FUD from the usual media manipulators on the Right.

Romney was gonna win, remember?

We'll see, but I think Obama & Holder don't need to do much of anything other than what they are. It's clear that they'll respect any states who follow our lead, within some sort of conventional reason.

Colorado is under intense scrutiny while legal cannabis becomes part of everyday life, and we're doing extremely well with it so far. I doubt that will change. The world around us will notice.

Prohibition has always existed on the basis of fear, fear of the unknown. Colorado defies that, because we are establishing what legal cannabis looks like, how it works, how it affects everybody.

We're letting the truth out of the bag. Nobody knows what it is for sure, but I see A64 as a brilliant achievement, utterly profound in its effect. We'll never go back, because there's really no way that the People will rescind A64. We're completing a paradigm shift that began long ago, back in the 60's. It's a tipping point sort of thing, and we just changed the balance, shifted it over center, pushing it further every day. Expect things to change very quickly from here.

 

[LargePrime]

Really I said nothing about souls, man.

But you did.
You use the phrase "natural rights" and other mumbo jumbo. But the concept of rights makes NO sense without a LEGAL (GOVENMENT) framework. If animals kill each other is there a rights violation? Nope. But if humans do? Humans are animals.

To claim there is a rights violation WITHOUT a larger legal(GOVERNMENT) framework requires the addition of some sort of other factor, i.e. MAGIC SOULS

You can observe we are all born equal as human beings if you stay in a maternity ward long enough.

Have you ever been in a maternity ward? I think no, cause that's not what I see. I see one three times the size of this other one. I see one on tubes and jaundiced, and another being held by parents surrounded by a family. So, really, none of them are EQUAL, in any way. And again, the JUDGING of what is equal requires a larger framework. IN a legal framework, they can be all judged and legally equal, like in the context of a court, like a GOVERNMENT would create.

That's from our nature whatever it means to you is irrelevant

I am just calling out your use of ideas and language to imply or infer a set of meanings that are NOT objective facts. Or accurate. Or meaningful.

lol.Where does the right of a government derived from ? the rights of the governed, and if you don't have that right as a individual then there is no way to confer that power to a government. Its just simple logic. One created the other, and it is not the other way around.

You are confused. SOME governments, i.e. U.S.A., SUGGEST or ASSERT that, in the CONTRACT that created them, that they recognize a division of authorities. Some of them are reserved to the people. Others are given to the created entities by that CONTRACT.

But quoting a LEGAL contract in the CREATION of a GOVERNMENT is a silly place for a "all da gubberment is bad" philosopher to look for a primary source of facts, right?

Cause most other governments in all of history do not assert and individual right of anything. But you know that 'cause you did your homework on your 'philosophy', right?

Well please point to one place where the state/government did not exist. I'll be waiting.

Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework? Or are you ASSERTING that it has NEVER existed, as a fact? Cause then i'll say 'Somalia' and show you your error.

I am not against anything "being done" or society, I just think the things that are going to be done, happen with consent and voluntarily.

So the baby killers should voluntarily turn themselves in?

Show me a place where the state/government created paradise.

Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework?
But really? Paradise? Your saying I have to find a govenment that has created a paradise, when you can't even find a non government event?
Ok fine. Denmark. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

Obligatory on topic part
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/federal-drug-prosecution-numbers_n_4986738.html
The number of drug defendants charged by the federal government in January dropped to its lowest monthly level in nearly 14 years...

 

[devilgoob]

^^You have no hope of reading a sentence without getting delusional with what they meant.

YOU SAID MAGIC SOULS!!!111

 

[LargePrime]

^^You have no hope of reading a sentence without getting delusional with what they meant.

YOU SAID MAGIC SOULS!!!111

So...
You are sure that I have no hope of "reading a sentence without getting delusional", and your immediate thought is "HEY!, let me post a sentence explaining that..."

heh... too many bowls?

 

[oldhaole]

Great post LP.

 

[bentom187]

But you did.
You use the phrase "natural rights" and other mumbo jumbo. But the concept of rights makes NO sense without a LEGAL (GOVENMENT) framework. If animals kill each other is there a rights violation? Nope. But if humans do? Humans are animals....

No I really didn't. You said it in your own post,not me. Yes it does you can protect your rights without a protection racket.And yes a animal has a right to its life. Do you understand what self ownership means ?

To claim there is a rights violation WITHOUT a larger legal(GOVERNMENT) framework requires the addition of some sort of other factor, i.e. MAGIC SOULSHave you ever been in a maternity ward? I think no, cause that's not what I see. I see one three times the size of this other one. I see one on tubes and jaundiced, and another being held by parents surrounded by a family. So, really, none of them are EQUAL, in any way. And again, the JUDGING of what is equal requires a larger framework. IN a legal framework, they can be all judged and legally equal, like in the context of a court, like a GOVERNMENT would create....

Ok so we know your premise is diluted to think natural rights don't exist .Did you have to ask permission to exist ? no ? then its your right to exist and defend your existence I would hope you can understand that much. Guess how you got that right ? its inherent in your being a part of nature.

Equal ,meaning they are all human ,if you or anyone chooses to treat babies or any disabled person differently its more of a intellectual flaw on the part of the person doing the judging.They are human beings not sub human they own their selves which means its a right, and yes rights are violated sometimes but that is not the victims fault nor does it negate their existence .

I am just calling out your use of ideas and language to imply or infer a set of meanings that are NOT objective facts. Or accurate. Or meaningful.You are confused. SOME governments, i.e. U.S.A., SUGGEST or ASSERT that, in the CONTRACT that created them, that they recognize a division of authorities. Some of them are reserved to the people. Others are given to the created entities by that CONTRACT.

But quoting a LEGAL contract in the CREATION of a GOVERNMENT is a silly place for a "all da gubberment is bad" philosopher to look for a primary source of facts, right?...

Who are the parties to the contract? "The People" the people are the states, not any of us.Quoting from case law.

Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah

*55

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court , on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress.

They are the only people recognized in it, not you or me.Also using common sense, can you consent for other people to do anything outlined in any contract that they did not expressly agree to? I am sure you will find that no where is that acceptable in your relationship with anyone.

Now lets look at the preamble of the contract .

Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Its obviously for them and their posterity not everyone else's posterity or security. It creates a legal fiction of corporate personhood for the imaginary lines called states and they are sovereign according to it. But its fiction and we are citizen/subjects according to it.

In reality you can exist without pieces of paper or anyones permission.

The object in all legislation refers to persons, persons may do this but not that ,if a person does this he is subject to that .

Lets use the definition that were in use at that time since they cant know future definitions unless they are warlocks.

http://www.nfpcar.org/Archive/Blacks_Law/

To be a man is a personal matter by contract.

Persons are the object of all legislation.They are capable but necessarily required to hold a rank or position in a private jural society. It affirms the need of express consent from the individual human being. To form a Corporate person.

This states that only subjects owe allegiance to their sovereign which is the states according to the constitution. If you are a free human being not bound by contract,then you are not a object to be ruled over.

the person
[YOUTUBEIF]XR9idrc1EHI[/YOUTUBEIF]

Cause most other governments in all of history do not assert and individual right of anything....

I just covered why.

But you know that 'cause you did your homework on your 'philosophy', right?Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework? ...

Because you posited that I believe in a libertarian paradise and its benefits, you failed to show a libertarian paradise anywhere,because it has never existed in recorded history.Meaning show me a place where no state has existed and someone didn't claim to rule over others. That is libertarian paradise ,or sanity as I like to call it.

Or are you ASSERTING that it has NEVER existed, as a fact? Cause then i'll say 'Somalia' and show you your error.

What you would be pointing to is not libertarianism its ruled by dictators, and that's your error, and assumption it would be ruled by warlords.

So the baby killers should voluntarily turn themselves in?...

No, whom do they turn themselves in to for murdering their own child, they have to face the fact that they are dumb immoral savages. If the murder someone elses child then they have to face the parents or guardians which could end up being very violent. That's definitely a paddlin.

[YOUTUBEIF]6N55c_t0AlQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework?
But really? Paradise? Your saying I have to find a govenment that has created a paradise, when you can't even find a non government event?
Ok fine. Denmark. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

...

yes you do ,because you assume government paradise exits and that it is paradise for everyone ,the libertarian model (which has not existed if you know what it means) allows for free association and you don't have laws you don't consent to ,which is a whole lot better than someone solving problems they caused, and saying they are there to create paradise. It just points out the absurdity of a expropriating property protector, it a obvious contradiction in terms.
Also ask someone in Denmark if it is paradise and compared to what ? you will find its simply a selection of governments. Therefore he wouldn't know anything better. He would be choosing the less of all those evils.He may find libertarianism more attractive.

 

[koolkush]

http://youtu.be/mVFrdWIs2LI LOL

 

[2 Legal Co]

x

 

[bentom187]

Well, yeh, but Obama didn't unilaterally break federal law. The people of Colorado forced him to act, one way or the other.

He took the pro-legalization path, quite knowingly, I'm sure.

Yes he did and you confirmed it , its the presidents job to faithfully execute the laws in the constitution and when he and others pick and choose which ones they want to enforce then they do so by breaking their oaths and the law. The state of Colorado did assert their rights he thinks its politically convenient to agree. It does not mean its legalized or lawful.

Another oft-overlooked aspect of this is that federal law makes no distinction between medical and recreational cannabis, meaning that every president since 1996 has "broken federal law". Obama's detractors generally refuse to address that, even when questioned directly, point-blank, as I'm doing now.

As a practical matter, federal law prohibiting cannabis cultivation is unenforceable in CO. But Rand Paul demands that Obama enforce that law. He goes on to say that he favors the decriminalization placebo..

Its not over looked it obvious, they all broke the law.
Its being addressed now, so when you legalize something it sticks instead of what the president feels like enforcing.
This congress like all others are corrupt it has no chance of passing though. I think it is token legislation, for political gain I highly doubt it is going to pass.

Yeh, yeh, yeh- then we get the song & dance about Congress, jury nullification & States' Rights, as if Obama & Holder haven't called on Congress to act while respecting States' Rights in CO & WA. When detractors claim he could change the classification of cannabis, which might be true, he neatly avoids that trap by demanding Congress do it, which they def can. Meanwhile, we get the breathing room in CO to show that legalization, not half-assed decrim, is sound policy, provide an example for other states to follow. Prohibitionist bullshit can't stand against the reality we are creating, enabled by the Obama Admin.

It's probably the most astute political move this Admin has ever made, because we will succeed in CO. Barring some very unlikely twist of fate, legalization will be a bandwagon by the 2016 election..

Ok so just to recap he is picking and choosing which laws to enforce against the states. You get "breathing room" for now. So its arbitrary, legalizing it federally does not matter if you cant get him to follow the law in the books.

The whole thing has left America's authoritarian Right ensnared in their own States' Rights rhetoric, sputtering in circles. Make no mistake about it, Rand Paul is part of that. If Obama gave in to what he demands, federal agents would be doing their usual all over CO, while the Hate-Um Obama! crowd would be screaming about him being a dictator.

As it is, Obama & Holder have rather neatly threaded the needle in a move that's clearly pro-legalization. It's up to us to take it from there.

Really I would wait for the vote to happen and hope they agree to follow the law which includes the tenth amendment. There are authoritarians on both sides ,you cant address the actual issue if you are unable or willing to see past red or blue.
And believe me this is a well planned political move on Rand's part, the states can have their rights without federal intrusion because that was the intent of the tenth amendment and making herb or any substance to ingest illegal, was illegal itself.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let us examine the basis of the whole argument, bentom187, that being the Presidential Oath itself-

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It doesn't say what you claim it does. "To the best of my ability" allows the President, any President, to make judgment calls as to allocation of resources, this being one of them. Attempts to enforce federal MJ law in Colorado are futile, a complete waste of resources, apparently in his estimation and my own.

The Constitutional counter balance to that is in Congress & the Judiciary, who have chosen to do nothing, by your own admission. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that they intend to do anything until the story of legal cannabis in CO & WA unfolds a bit further.

Garbage in, garbage out, sir. Your premises are faulty.

 

[rives]

Article Two, Section Three of the Constitution -

Presidential Responsibilities -

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

 

[Jhhnn]

Article Two, Section Three of the Constitution -

Presidential Responsibilities -

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That's been covered- "To the best of his ability".

Arguing against the blind partisanship displayed in such criticism is amazing, particularly here. Are you actually suggesting that the Obama Admin divert resources to cover the enforcement of federal marijuana law in CO? Or not?

If not, such criticisms are empty, indicative of another agenda entirely.

 

[rives]

"To the best of his ability"? He obviously has the ability.......

As I stated waaaay back at the start of this thread, the enforcement of federal mj laws is completely incidental to what Paul is trying to achieve - Obama is picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and when, and how much, and the benign neglect currently being directed toward mj just happens to fall into the same category as a bunch of other laws that he has chosen not to "execute".

This failure is in opposition to what the Constitution states his job is - whether or not we agree with the law, whether or not it is a good law, etc, etc, etc, have nothing to do with it. If he wants to make a lasting change in the mj arena, this is not how to go about it. For example, we are signatory to innumerable international treaties, which we initiated, that will be a hell of an impediment to anything other than medical legalization. The post-Anslinger Gordian knot of interwoven drug laws is going to take a long, long time and a concerted effort by the legislature and the executive branch to get straightened out. Obama doesn't have it in him to undertake a task of that nature.

 

[bentom187]

Let us examine the basis of the whole argument, bentom187, that being the Presidential Oath itself-



It doesn't say what you claim it does. "To the best of my ability" allows the President, any President, to make judgment calls as to allocation of resources, this being one of them. Attempts to enforce federal MJ law in Colorado are futile, a complete waste of resources, apparently in his estimation and my own.

The Constitutional counter balance to that is in Congress & the Judiciary, who have chosen to do nothing, by your own admission. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that they intend to do anything until the story of legal cannabis in CO & WA unfolds a bit further.

Garbage in, garbage out, sir. Your premises are faulty.

No it doesn't since his ability to sanction Russia and conduct war across the globe with out congress (against the law outlined in the constitution) , (for 90 days under the war power act) even against Americans without due process is unfettered he just has been ignoring MJ since it will not win any hearts and minds. He could call emergencies at any time here and send in the troops, most states are happy to take federal funds instead of protecting itself from the executive.

As far as being futile, im just going to remind you of a lawyer named Abraham Lincoln who had murdered 700,000 + people.

And there are no checks and balances with one person in charge of enforcement and a corrupt congress and judiciary ,who have no enforcement power. The judiciary only turns a blind eye to the violence and number of laws. Then tell you, you got what you asked for because you didn't do anything to stop it.
The judiciary is supposed to give its opinion on the law that's it, jury's are supposed to convict people (human trafficking is illegitimate unless you consent any way).
Obviously if you take a plea you are not giving yourself the opportunity to be set free by nullification .I am aware as well they threaten you with more time if you don't take the plea.
But it just proves my position that checks and balances are hogwash.

 

[bentom187]

"To the best of his ability"? He obviously has the ability.......



For example, we are signatory to innumerable international treaties, which we initiated, that will be a hell of an impediment to anything other than medical legalization.

Well said.
That's if the UN allows it ,while these treaties are only the law of the land if the executive enforces them ,he has no choice because in international law its binding on the nation/corporation, not following through is grounds for a war under the law of nations. Depending on how crazy they are feeling that day, it could go there.