mar1juana Legalized in 2 States, Gay Marriage in 4. Is Slavery Next?

I don't think that's true.

I think it is the result of a few things:

1) This board is mostly liberal. Just the increased number of liberals give it a better chance to more accurately reflect the spectrum.

2) The extreme conservatives on this board have been bombastic and outrageous in the past (and still are). This had led to a culture where the left pounce on them at every opportunity. This in turn makes it less likely the moderate right is going to speak.

3) Shame. A lot of moderate right wingers are ashamed of the things the party is doing and saying on a lot of issues and don't want to be associated with it.

 

I don't consider myself a liberal. I actually liked Romney in the 2008 election and in this one. It was just the republican party I had a hard time coinciding with, which why I didn't really vote.

Compared to a lot of these loonies on here though, I seem like a staunch democrat which I clearly am not.

 

I don't disagree with (or care about) this statement, but I just want to make sure I'm not considered a conservative. That is offensive.

But if nullification is considered a radical position then I guess I'm a radical. While state governments aren't necessarily "better" than federal governments, I would rather have those two groups of sociopaths f*** with each other than f*** with me.

 

This pretty much sums up debating politics on the internet, or at all really.

 

Fair enough.

So please take your party back! We need more justtxyanks and refmans

 

A lot of us are in exile, waiting for all this tea party nonsense to die down. We're just sort of blending in with the moderate democrats until it's safe to come out again.

Hopefully, last night was the beginning of the end.

 

You forgot goat marriage, OP. Because that's the next step isn't it? First you have gay love, then gay marriage and well, if gays can marry each other, why can't a man and his goat/sheep who love each other also marry? And why stop there, the next step must be to bring back child marriages.

Obama really is the anti-christ, the rapture is coming. Also, I'm sure Obama, the radical Muslim, will have Sharia law deployed and fully enforced within the next four years. That's if the USA hasn't been nuked by Iran, conquered by China or overrun by Mexicans.

True Americans and god-fearing Christians who stand up to oppose him will be shot en masse, their fates determined by governmental death squads once Obamacare is fully in place.

But hey, there's a silver lining. At least once sharia is in place, gays and adulterers will be stoned to death, just like God wanted.

 

I really liked Romney in 2008, not at all this time. I also really like McCain of 2000 as well, but not the 2008 version. Romney saw how McCain transformed from a centrist republican to a tea party republican to beat him out on 2008 the republican nomination. He tried the same strategy this year to win the repub nomination but it sort of inherently cost him losing the general election from the get-go.

 

The next 2 years are going to be really interesting. If the Republican party goes hard to the right and continues to act like taxes should be cut every year until they reach -55% and continue to die on the hills of gay rights and staunch immigration opposition, I will be more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton (bleh) then I will for a Republican.

I want real tax code reform that isn't a ruse to lower taxes paid by the richest in America. I want real entitlement reform. I want immigration reform. I want the gay marriage issue to be put to rest. I don't want to hear about how lazy poor people are. I don't want to hear about compassion for the needy in one breath and cutting services with the other. I want a person who is willing to cut government spending where appropriate and that includes the military.

Sigh.

 

Sure. I like Ron Paul on a lot issues. Unfortunately he's cuckoo on too many others.

 

He's really not, but this isn't the place to discuss it. So we'll just agree to disagree.

 

No, you're mistaken.

It has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. The CSA is the U.S. implementation of international drug prohibition treaties signed in the 60s. The constitutonality of CSA lies with the fact that the Federal Government has the explicitly stated power to ratify and uphold international treaties.

The Supremacy Clause (in Article VI) states that the Constitution, powers explicitly stated therein, and treaties, are the "highest law of the land," thereby superceding any local/state laws to the contrary. There is plenty of historical precedence where the Supreme Court declared it could strike down any state law that directly contradicts the Constitution, or any federal law or international treaties passed pursuant to it.

However, Congress has the power to withdraw from these international drug treaties. Should Congress decide to do that, then the states would be free to pass whatever drug laws they want (I believe).

EDIT:
I don't mean to imply that international law trumps the Constitution. It does not. However, the fact of the matter is...the U.S. signed the international treaties and are therefore legally obligated to uphold its provisions as long as it chooses to participate. Until Congress decides not to uphold these treaties, there's nothing unconstitional about federal drug laws superceding those passed by the states.

 

The only way that Scalia leaves the Court with Obama in charge is if Scalia drops dead.

 

He's 76, it be unfortunate if he did, but it's not too inconceivable.

 

Anybody want to buy me right now?

 

Medical mar1juana prohibition was heard by the Supreme Court and the commerce clause was why it was upheld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

It sounds like we are mostly agreeing. I agreed with you that states can not override federal law due to the supremacy clause. However, if a law or treaty is unconstitutional, the supremacy clause is meaningless. The only reason the SCA was found constitution is because of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty ridiculous.

 

Hells yes to some slavery.

 

Slavery already exists in the US and in several parts of the world through an evolved form.

It's called cheap immigrant labor (see Mexico, Philippines, etc.).

 

A simple flow chart (Not Pictured) will show you that yes, slavery is next. Scholars maintain that the Old Kingdom ancient Egyptians often sanctified unholy unions while pacifying the masses with ganja before ushering in the most prosperous social civic of all; slavery.

If only I wasn't so pacified right now... I would totally do something about it.