Schumer wants to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level

[Angelsjunky]

8 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

The age of the document has zero relevance.

The fact of the matter is that it contains basic ethics and truths which our Government is required to adhere to which will still be relevant centuries from now, and would have been relevant 2,000 years ago.

"Basic ethics and truths" are different then some of the actual amendments, which aren't so relevant today.

I wouldn't be opposed to a new constitutional convention. 

[GrittyVeterans]

11 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

It is a document written over 200 years ago, much of which is no longer relevant to life in 2018.

This is just an embarrassing thing to say, I don't care how progressive you are

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

The Constitution doesn't say most powers should be delegated to the states? What does it say then? Did you read the Constitution of the United States?

What are you talking about? When did I disagree with that?  All I'm saying is that some of the Constitution isn't as relevant today as it was when it was written, and that there is nothing wrong with evolving it to suit the times.

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

This is just an embarrassing thing to say, I don't care how progressive you are

I'm not embarassed to say it. Why? Because some of the Bill of RIghts - which is part of the Constitution - are no longer relevant today. 

[GrittyVeterans]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

I'm not embarassed to say it. Why? Because some of the Bill of RIghts - which is part of the Constitution - are no longer relevant today. 

You said "much of which is no longer relevant" in reference to the constitution. That's embarrassing and objectively wrong.

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

You said "much of which is no longer relevant" in reference to the constitution. That's embarrassing and objectively wrong.

"Much" is up for interpretation, but I'll grant you it was probably an exagerration. Do you disagree, though, that some of it is no longer relevant? 

[GrittyVeterans]

7 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

"Much" is up for interpretation, but I'll grant you it was probably an exagerration. Do you disagree, though, that some of it is no longer relevant? 

Some as in a thing or two here and there. But the overall gist of it still holds an incredible amount of relevance, even 230 years later.

The problem is you start changing things to the constitution and where do you draw the line? It's supposed to be a document that doesn't change because if it's allowed to be changed, it just opens the door for government corruption and infringement on basic rights. 

As much as we'd all like it to be 100% perfect, is it really worth the risk of fucking with it?

 Your life would be very different (and almost definitely worse) without that document. 

[Angelsjunky]

29 minutes ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

My post said the Constitution's purpose is to limit the size and power of the federal government and you said "that's not at all what it says". But now you are agreeing it says that?

By saying "that isn't all that it says" doesn't mean I'm saying it doesn't say that, just not only that. I'm honestly not sure why you're misunderstanding this. I never disagreed that it says that, just that it also says other things - some of which aren't so relevant today, or could be modified or amended to be more relevant. 

I have no problem with the Constitution - it is a terrific outline of government and rights. I just don't think it is this sacred, inviolable document that cannot or should not be changed. People change. Society changes. The world of 2018 is rather different than the world of the late 18th century.

[Kevin]

The only thing I would like to see is an update or clarification to the second amendment. Other than that, the document holds its own very well even if it is not treated with the respect it deserves. 

[red321]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

"Basic ethics and truths" are different then some of the actual amendments, which aren't so relevant today.

I wouldn't be opposed to a new constitutional convention. 

Worst fucking idea ever. Who do you think goes to this convention? Reincarnation of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and crew?

Think of the state legislatures, the screaming pundits...the dimwits who come up with sharia law bans and the yahoos running for Congress. And you want to give them the keys to rewrite the entire constitution...no limits? You can’t just give them a directive...rewrite this small part, and adjust this part over here.

its the whole thing

every right and left wing shit storm idea...suddenly that’s on the table. 

Worst idea ever

[Tank]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm not embarassed to say it. Why? Because some of the Bill of RIghts - which is part of the Constitution - are no longer relevant today. 

just curious which amendments you think are no longer relevant and why.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

23 hours ago, arch stanton said:

His point is that it was never the place of the federal government to create the law in the first place. The interstate commerce clause has been turned into a loophole for creating a federal dictatorship that was never intended 

I don't disagree with the premise, but the fact remains that the law was created, leaving the door open for the feds to swoop in on states where it has been legalized. Trump has hinted that he may do this.

[Lou]

15 hours ago, red321 said:

Worst fucking idea ever. Who do you think goes to this convention? Reincarnation of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and crew?

Think of the state legislatures, the screaming pundits...the dimwits who come up with sharia law bans and the yahoos running for Congress. And you want to give them the keys to rewrite the entire constitution...no limits? You can’t just give them a directive...rewrite this small part, and adjust this part over here.

its the whole thing

every right and left wing shit storm idea...suddenly that’s on the table. 

Worst idea ever

If anyone didn't immediately think of this, they shouldn't be discussing politics. 

[Lou]

If I recall correctly, the Commerce Clause affords the federal government the right to make the marijuana illegal. 

[mtangelsfan]

Yeah, that is the excuse they use.  At best, they might be able to use it regulate interstate selling of weed.  Certainly not intrastate though

[floplag]

On 4/22/2018 at 2:01 AM, Angelsjunky said:

I'm not embarassed to say it. Why? Because some of the Bill of RIghts - which is part of the Constitution - are no longer relevant today. 

Im curious, which ones?

[Lou]

3 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Yeah, that is the excuse they use.  At best, they might be able to use it regulate interstate selling of weed.  Certainly not intrastate though

There's no might about it. The Supreme Court ruled on it. 

[mtangelsfan]

35 minutes ago, Lou said:

There's no might about it. The Supreme Court ruled on it. 

They also ruled that black people were half a person at one time.  

[Lou]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

They also ruled that black people were half a person at one time.  

Since that was changed, it isn't relevant here.

[mtangelsfan]

38 minutes ago, Lou said:

Since that was changed, it isn't relevant here.

Of course it is.  SCOTUS is fallible 

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Of course it is.  SCOTUS is fallible 

Of course it is. However, until they change the decision, it's law. 

 

[Brandon]

can we just call a spade, a spade?

marijuana was a propaganda ploy where the cotton industry was mad that hemp was a better material. so they came up with "reefer madness" and other bullshit calling It a mexican name meaning "locoweed" and claiming it was used by mexicans and blacks while harming whites. since then shit got ass-backwards and they made it a schedule 1 drug in line with heroin, cocaine, and lsd. 

marijuana wasn't meant to be stopped as a "drug", but rather the cotton industries way of shutting it down to make cotton more viable.....even though hemp products are superior.

it's some bullshit.

[arch stanton]

If you haven’t seen Reefer Madness do yourself a favor and find a copy. Comedy gold 

[floplag]

12 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Of course it is.  SCOTUS is fallible 

Anyone is fallible, but for me SCOTUS lost a large part of its credibility when it also started being partisan.   I thought the point of these people not having terms was so they weren't beholden to the political leaders, i guess that's moot.  
These people must check their personal agenda, whatever it is, at the door, they have to great a responsibility.  
 

[hopkinsHalo]

SCOTUS was always partisan. And the US constitution was never really all that great. I mean, kuddos to those guys for founding a secular republic about a generation before the French who invented the idea could pull it off, but many much better constitutions have been introduced all over the world since then.  Study the 18c even a little and that becomes pretty obvious. Today, the US Constitution is hilariously outdated, which explains why both federal and state govts have to ignore it all the time.