- Messages
- 17,540
- Reaction score
- 3,309
- Points
- 288
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
www.bloomberg.com
Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
Now how many days until the mid terms? This administration is so freaking transparent.
Even so, this is a good thing.
He does not have the authority to make it apply to the States.the real crime is not making this pardon mandatory across the board , federal and STATE
It's in Article 6nowhere in the constitution does the feds, or the state have the legal right to criminalize drugs of any sort.
I agree, but the way to do it is by having "leaders" that want it to work that way. As long as virtually everyone going to DC see's the Constitution as a hinderance to be creatively overcome, we'll never get that.we've got to get the fed back in it's limited track, and destroy the ugly monster it's become.
He does not have the authority to make it apply to the States.
It's in Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
...and the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics that the US instigated and signed, is what cause weed to be Constitutionally illegal.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but the Constitution says what it say. Not what we might like it to say.
I agree, but the way to do it is by having "leaders" that want it to work that way. As long as virtually everyone going to DC see's the Constitution as a hinderance to be creatively overcome, we'll never get that.
They could in fact do that. After all, that's how the fed.gov got the drinking age raised to 21 in all States. The feds threatened to withhold federal highway monies unless it was raised.but he could use the Bully Pulpit to apply pressure to states that do not follow the Pardon
maybe even apply some federal pressure , like stalling or withholding federal funds until each state comes up with a pardon , kinda like he did in Ukraine eh
It's in Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
...and the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics that the US instigated and signed, is what cause weed to be Constitutionally illegal.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but the Constitution says what it say. Not what we might like it to say.
How so? Why does Article 6 say that ratified treaties become the law of the land then?Wrong again.
I never said it was "from" the Constitution.your Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics is from the united nations, not the constitution,
What a crock! In no way do I support them.Remember the un, the same creeps that want to scamdemosize us today with this bullshit viral scamdemic into giving up our constitutional rights, much like you're trying here..
The function of the Constitution is to establish the framework of what the gov is and can or cannot do.Bullshit on that being a constitutional function. If you believe that you have no clue of the function of the constitution upon the fed gov is.
All I am doing is explaining how the mechanism that got us to this juncture, works.And you, as always, are trying to lead us down the primrose path to total social control by your globalist masters.
Here, read it yourselfs. https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/1961-Convention/convention_1961_en.pdf
The function of the Constitution is to establish the framework of what the gov is and can or cannot do.
They don't.How about you explain why the UN has anything to say within our jurisdiction?
What I want is for you to document your claims.you want me to provide you with details and documentation. Find it yourself. It's there.
Joe's entire point is that the Constitution specifies, in Article 6, that treaties are equal to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That's what Article 6 of the Constitution says. Treaties are serious business.I admit that I don't know much about the treaties, but whatever, they cannot supercede the constitution, ...
Yes, they are serious business.Joe's entire point is that the Constitution specifies, in Article 6, that treaties are equal to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That's what Article 6 of the Constitution says. Treaties are serious business.
About United States Jurisdiction |
---|
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252 [bold emphasis added] |
The term "United States", when used in its territorial meaning, encompasses the areas of land defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and 4:3:2, nothing more. In this respect, the "United States" is a separate Nation which is foreign with respect to the States united by and under the Constitution, because the "United States" as such has never applied for admission to the Union of States known as the "United States of America". Accordingly, statutory "citizens of the United States" who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are defined in the wording of the so called 14th Amendment and of The Civil Rights Acts. At best, this so-called Amendment is a "private Act" rather than a public act which designates a class of people who are unique to the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Federal Territories and Possessions, and the land which has been ceded by the Legislatures of the 50 States to the foreign nation-state of the "United States" for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and "other needful buildings" (see 1:8:17 and 4:3:2). Collectively, this territorial jurisdiction can be termed "The Federal Zone" to distinguish it uniquely from the nation as a whole and from the 50 States of the Union. The "nation" can, therefore, be defined as the mathematical union of the federal zone and the 50 States (using the language of set theory.) The District of Columbia is technically a corporation and is only defined as a "State" in its own codes and under International Law (e.g., see IRC 7701(a)(10)). |
The language of this act provides that the government of the District (the Federal Government) is a corporation, municipal in nature but still a corporation. Furthermore, District citizens (United States citizens - U. S. citizens) will now be subject to corporation law as well as law of the Republic.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.
Just a question but if the US signs a treaty outlawing the right to bear arms by all Citizens which document takes precedence
Then someone sure af needs to tell the Supreme Court that tidbit of information.Can Treaties Override the Constitution? An Issue Posed By Bond v. United States | Tenth Amendment Center
Under the Constitution as originally understood, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.”tenthamendmentcenter.com
Middle finger right back atcha...Hey! I know. Maybe @arminius can take one for the team and get himself busted for weed, take it to court, lose, appeal, lose and go all the way to the SC with that argument and get the law overturned.
You thought that was givin' you the middle finger? Hardly.Middle finger right back atcha...
Whether it’s good or bad for society and individuals I still maintain it’s none of their businessPretty much a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” guy here. When MT first had a vote for medical marijuana, I voted for it as did the overwhelming majority of the state. That was a few years ago and we are now seeing the effects of publicly supported weed. The “Big Town” close to me has about 120,000 people. Shootings and stabbings simply did not happen in during my lifetime (now 50+ years) until now, post-pro weed laws. Now we have at least 2 shootings a week and stabbings are becoming normal. The idyllic nature of what was a quaint western cow town is gone. Is it all weed’s fault? I doubt it. Did the lax public attitude towards weed, largely a form of “sticking it to the man”, have a lot to do with the current drug problems in the state? I don’t see how not. So, in short, I wish that MT still had harsh anti-weed laws on the books, and enforced.
I fully agree with not wanting a life supervisor, nor wanting people in my business or desiring to be in their business.Whether it’s good or bad for society and individuals I still maintain it’s none of their business
i don’t need or want a life supervisor
Pretty much a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” guy here. When MT first had a vote for medical marijuana, I voted for it as did the overwhelming majority of the state. That was a few years ago and we are now seeing the effects of publicly supported weed. The “Big Town” close to me has about 120,000 people. Shootings and stabbings simply did not happen in during my lifetime (now 50+ years) until now, post-pro weed laws. Now we have at least 2 shootings a week and stabbings are becoming normal. The idyllic nature of what was a quaint western cow town is gone. Is it all weed’s fault? I doubt it. Did the lax public attitude towards weed, largely a form of “sticking it to the man”, have a lot to do with the current drug problems in the state? I don’t see how not. So, in short, I wish that MT still had harsh anti-weed laws on the books, and enforced.