Arizona Attorney General to seek court ruling making medical marijuana dispensaries illegal

6 comments:

• tdog420 posted at 1:34 pm on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.

  Posts: 1

  SCR*W HIM AND THE HORSE HE ROAD IN ON. RED NECK SCUM

  • Link

   

• firefly1818 posted at 7:42 am on Tue, Aug 7, 2012.

  Posts: 11

  Did you elected officials not understand what the voters demanded? And yeah...what about too much gov't interference and big gov't; does that only work when it suits your agenda? T*m Ho*ne, you are a disgrace (and what's even sadder is it is the very same set of voters that elected him as voted for medical marijuana). The sheer stupidity astounds me (I should be getting used to it by now, but I don't think I ever will).

  • Link

   

• az2008 posted at 9:37 pm on Mon, Aug 6, 2012.

  Posts: 307

  Papasan has a good point. But, Republicans never refer to the supremacy clause. Normally they become puffed up about "states rights" and would create a law in direct contradiction of federal law, forcing the feds to show their cards.

  What's happening here is exactly the opposite. Voters approved a law which Republicans don't like. Republicans are trying to find a way to help federal law be supreme. They want to test federal law with the goal of the feds winning.

  Complete hypocrisy. It says a lot about the Hard RIght's claim to be the defenders of individual liberty, and defiance of "big government." Republicans like Big Government when it suits them. Then act like it's everyone else.

  • Link

   

• downtownresident posted at 9:16 pm on Mon, Aug 6, 2012.

  Posts: 815

  How many states have enacted other laws contrary to federal laws?
  Russell Pearce, poster boy for ignorance, bigotry and racism can give you pointers.

  • Link

   

• papasan173 posted at 8:13 pm on Mon, Aug 6, 2012.

  Posts: 4

  The main issue in this whole debacle has been that, even though voter approved, Medical Marijuana is illegal under Federal law. Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

  According to the Supremacy Clause, no state shall enact any law that is contradictory to Federal law. This has been the law of the land since the 1930s. Prior to that the government's position was that the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, would be used.[smile]

  • Link

   

• downtownresident posted at 6:59 pm on Mon, Aug 6, 2012.

  Posts: 815

  Sounds like this is starting to resemble the fireworks law, in reverse.
  Now, it's OK to use it, but you can't LEGALLY buy it.
  When will "the public servants" serve the public, instead of blindly following the party line.
  "Public servants" are spending millions of our tax dollars to retain puritan standards that are putting millions of people in jail.
  Where's Joe?

  • Link