41 votes

Obama Administration orders all California medical-marijuana outlets to close

"Federal prosecutors in California are threatening to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state, sending letters to warn landlords to stop sales of the drug within 45 days or face the possibility that their property will be seized and they will be sent to prison."

"The stepped-up enforcement appears to be a major escalation in the Obama administration’s bid to rein in the explosive spread of medical marijuana outlets that was accelerated by the announcement that federal prosecutors would not target people using medical marijuana in states that allow it."

The rest of the article is a the following link:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/feds-cracking-...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Obama is Bush's 3rd term, or

Obama is Bush's 3rd term, or is it Carter's 2nd term? Oh, I forgot...it doesn't matter.

Bu'ushist Sixth term

Poppy Bush: 1989 - 1993, one term
Bubba Bush: 1993 - 2001, two terms
Dubya Bush: 2001 - 2009, two terms
Barry Bush: 2009 - present, and counting...

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Obombney Bush in 2012

and if we make it that long Jeb Bush

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

If our state government

If our state government doesn't have the cajones to nullify this, then they are completely useless (they're pretty close to that already)

emalvini's picture

Next Thing You Know Obama is Going To Suspend 2012 Elections

There was talk last night on 'Coast to Coast' that it wouldn't surprise many listeners if That S.O.B. suspends the 2012 elections..

He said medical marijuana

In his statements against medical marijuana raids, he said it would not make sense to do it against medical marijuana "users." Perhaps that does not mean vendors, at least when you are someone with a law background. I learned not to trust what Obama said after learning he always voted for the Patriot Act when it came down to it instead of following his words of it being bad for America.

But I really like this blog post. It's a great summary of Obama's hypocrisies. http://davidkretzmann.com/2011/10/the-hypocrisy-of-barack-ob...

The bulk of Californians

The bulk of Californians decided they wanted Obama rather than President Paul. Looks like they got what they wanted good and hard.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Or maybe more like they/we

Or maybe more like they/we chose Obama rather than McCain. I did not vote in the general election though, only in the primary for Ron Paul...

I don't think California by itself could have made Ron Paul the GOP nominee. But maybe I am wrong about that.

Remember that the Feds can't do anything without help....

What kind of help you may ask? Why the help and physical support of the local sheriffs department. Look at every single raid, you always see local police assisting the feds. The easiest way to not get raids in your county is to convince the local sheriff not to help. Now while the sheriff is the highest law enforcement entity of the land and does have the power to kick the feds out of his county, this is not necessary. All they have to do is refuse to help in the raids, call it due to manpower issues. If the sheriffs were convinced that it is not their job to enforce federal law, but county and state law, this would be most helpful too. Perhaps we need Sheriff Mack to go on a speaking tour of California.

sometimes true

It is often true the Feds coordinate with local law enforcement. It is technically incorrect to presume the Feds always/must work with local law enforcement.

Sheriffs can stop the Feds, if they have the guts to stand up and do it.

What could Obama do? He can't

What could Obama do?

He can't unilaterally decide to disregard the Supreme Court and the law. He cannot declare the WOD unconstitutional since the SC has verified its constitutionality. Therefore, since Congress has passed WOD, he's obligated to follow through with it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Obama is a Puppet. Don't You Get It Yet?

Obama unilaterally decided to bomb Libya (violation of the Constitution); Obama unilaterally decided to execute an American without Trial (Violation of the Constitution), etc. When Obama has a chance to uphold the Constitution and protect Americans of course he protects Big Pharm just like he protected the Too Big To Fail Masters. Obama is a Puppet. Don't you get it? Please wake up from your deep sleep and look at what is happening. Obama, Romney, Perry, et al are different faces on the same guy. Their sole job is to come up with whatever stupid rationalization - to tighten the grip of the Masters - as their payment for getting to play the role of President. Whenever it comes to a decision about anything, the puppets have no interest in the Constitution or the People, just their Corporate Masters. Follow the strings back to their source. Lets cut the strings. RON PAUL AND FREEDOM 2012!!

I am not disagreeing with

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I am trying to make the point clear, the the President can't just use his own interpretation of the Constitution on every action.

Would Ron Paul be any better if he unilaterally decided to force his platform on the American people?

That is my point.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

i've been thinking you were a troll

thanks for the conformation.

read the ogden memo because you really don't know what you're talking about.

ron paul would abolish the dea and end the federal drug war. no need for interpretations or the scotus.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

The DEA can't just be

The DEA can't just be abolished by the whim of the president.

He would need to go through Congress.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"Would Ron Paul be any better..."

...if he unilaterally decided to force his platform on the American people?"

Yes, absolutely, unquestionably, incontrovertibly.

Because his platform is to: "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." - See US Constitution, Article II, section 1:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

And he is the only Man Of His Word that Washington, DC has ever seen. The crooks are terrified of him, ergo the blackout.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

You aren't understanding the

You aren't understanding the point.

His platform may be to "defend the Constitution", but his intepretation of the Constitution is not shared by many others. Will he just unilaterally enforce his intepretation on them?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Interpretation?

No, I believe he won't do any "interpretation" at all. He will go by the words that are there in black and white on parchment paper.

"Interpretation" of the Constitution is a tool that the crooks use to swindle you into believing that they're wiser than Our Founding Fathers or something. (hint - they're not, they're merely less honest.)

The Constitution says what it means, and it means what it says. If you want to put another "interpretation" on it, you're welcome to do so, by a process called "Amendment," called out in Article V.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

Freedom is my Worship Word!

If there is not supposed to

If there is not supposed to be any interpretation of the Constitution, why does the Supreme Court even exist?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Why does the Supreme Court exist?

It's too long to quote here, but here's a link:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

(hint: there is no mention of the word "interpret.")

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Wow, just wow. Can't you

Wow, just wow. Can't you think out of the box?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

"If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void"

Read the origins of judicial review by Prakash and Yoo for quotes from 12 of the 13 ratifying conventions describing the power of judicial review in the Constitution.

Judicial review was used under the administrations of every president who also signed the Constitution.

You say that the constitution deson't have to be interpreted. That it is plain and clear in black and white.

Let me give you an example of "intepretation". Ron Paul doesn't believe in birthright citizenship, even though it CLEARLY states in the constitution, amendment 14, that all those born in this nation become citizens. Ron Paul's argument, despite this CLEAR statement, is that at the time of the 14th amendment's writing, the framers only thought about Black Americans. That is what the citizenship clause should apply to.

So who is right in that case? It is clear-cut said that everyone born here; yet, Ron Paul has a point in that the framers likely never thought that it would be used as it is today.

To my original point, if the constitution was so clear-cut, why was the supreme court even established? If it was so clear, why did the founders think there could be differences in intepretation? Why was there so much debate during the constitutional convention about how the constitution could be interpreted (see Hamilton vs. Madison)?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

He did not take an oath to

He did not take an oath to the Supreme Court or Congress. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

The founders thought of many

The founders thought of many things when writing the Constitution. There was the idea that the federal supreme court should decide on constitutionality. There was the idea that the Congress should decide on constitutionality (the British doctrine). There was also the idea that the state courts should have some influence on defining constitutionality. But no one suggested that the President be the one to decide if something is constitutional or not.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Constitutional?

The president's job is definitely to look at the constitutionality of a piece of legislation that's submitted to him, and veto it if it is in violation thereof.

I.e., he's supposed to have already stopped the unconstitutional legislation before it even starts.

That is what Ron Paul has guaranteed that he will do, and as he is a man of his word, I support him 100%.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

What if the legislation was

What if the legislation was passed before he got into office? What if it was passed over his veto?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What if?

"What if the legislation was passed before he got into office?"

He could introduce a bill to rescind the bad legislation, or he could, as Commander in Chief of the Executive Branch (the enforcement arm), simply decline to enforce it.

Personally, I'd like to see a Retroactive Veto introduced.

"What if it was passed over his veto?"

Well, then, obviously, it's the Will of the People, or at least of their representatives and senators. If you can get two-thirds of both houses to agree on something, it must have been a doozie!

Freedom is my Worship Word!

I never said the president

I never said the president was to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The Founders did not want any one body to have final say on what is constitutional. Congress was not supposed to pass unconstitutional laws. The president was supposed to veto or not enforce the ones that were passed. The supreme court was supposed to strike down the ones that got through. And if all else fails, the states were supposed to have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws. An unconstitutional law is no law at all.

"The president was supposed

"The president was supposed to veto or not enforce the ones that were passed. The supreme court was supposed to strike down the ones that got through."

Well, then it is out of OBama's hands. The law has already been passed, and the supreme court has upheld the law.

"And if all else fails, the states were supposed to have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws. An unconstitutional law is no law at all."

The states can nullify laws, but not if they've been held up as constitutional by the supreme court. They would have to comply with constitutional federal law, or secede.

Some people disagree with this, saying that the state courts can say a federal law is unconstitutional...but this leads to abuse. A state could basically say anything it thinks is unconstitutional, is unconstitutional. The constitution loses its meaning. State judges who aren't objective are not held in check, since federal government can't "regulate" the state government. State government however can regulate the federal government. Political pressure can be applied to change Congress, the executive branch, and even the judicial branch, especially at the lower federal courts. That is why constitutionality is determined federally, because there is a system of checks in place.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Not true. As the Founders,

Not true. As the Founders, such as Madison and Jefferson, knew that judges are not infallible (whether federal or state), and the Supreme Court was never intended to be the sole arbiter of what is constitutional. The court is still a branch of the federal government, so essentially it would be giving the federal government the sole power to determine whether or not the laws it enacts are constitutional. Nullification may not be a perfect solution, because a state can disregard a law it dislikes, but there are no perfect solutions. The alternative is the federal government holding sole power over determining whether or not its actions are lawful. Yes there are checks, but the government can collude, or one branch can intimidate the others (see Roosevelt, Franklin Delano). The federal government was not intended to have the power to pass that many meaningful laws, which meant that nullification would generally be used only in cases of real abuse. I recommend "Nullification" by Tom Woods. Good book and very informative.

Jefferson and Madison were

Jefferson and Madison were cautious about judges, but their caution was frankly underwhelmingly, probably because both were lawyers as well. The idea of judicial review at the Federal level was presented by Hamilton in the Federalist papers and reconfirmed during the presidencies of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams (probably Monroe as well).

Think about it logically: if a state can nullify any law it likes, what is the point of a Constitution? What is the point of a law in the first place? The federal government has no jurisdiction over state courts...

However, states do have some jurisdiction over federal courts. If the judges are making decrees that they think are unconstitutional, they can put political pressure to get him kicked out ("good behaviour"). They can also pick who is appointed because they elect the President and the House, and of course state legislatures pick those in the Senate. That was considered a very fair checks and balances. Even if there was collusion or corruption, the politicians would have to answer to the people. Equally important, if California felt that the court was ruling incorrectly, they would need the support of many others states to change the judicial system (or amend the constitution).

In your situation, California could go "meh, I don't care" and there is no liability. California does not have to answer to other states. If there is collusion or corruption going on in their government, no one from the outside can correct it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a